Jump to content

Talk:Olivia Rodrigo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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

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) 21:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

Olivia Rodrigo (born February 20, 2003[1][2]) is a Filipino-American actress and singer.

(change American to Filipino-American)

source: https://www.popbuzz.com/tv-film/features/olivia-rodrigo/ethnicity-where-from-filipino/ Snapmeback (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Snapmeback (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  •  Not done Questioning the reliability of this source. There is already another, reliable, source in the article confirming her ethnicity, but those issues aside, her ethnicity is not relevant to her notability and therefore shouldn't be included in the lede. Please read MOS:ETHNICITY for more. MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Also Filipino is via one great-grandfather on her father's side only per the source used above. No information about her other 7 great-grandparents but this article implies that the 4 on her mother's side were not Filipino. She said she was raised in that culture but that implies her mother had little to do with her cultural identity which seems dubious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Debut single

Several publications are calling "Driver's License" Rodrigo's debut single. Are there any reliable sources that call "All I Want" a single, or evidence of radio release? Should be moved to the Other charted songs section if not.--NØ 07:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: no evidence that it’s a single. The only thing I can find is mention of a music video. The song didn’t have a release independent of an album, nor did any radio push it, nor do we have any sources calling it a single. I say remove it from High School Musical: The Musical: The Series, High School Musical: The Musical: The Series (soundtrack), move it to "Other charted songs" here, remove its official single status on its official page, and remove it from the chronology at Drivers License (song). D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Doggy54321. – DarkGlow (✉) 22:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything considering "All I Want" to be a single either. Universal Records also calling it her debut single: "il suo singolo di debutto “drivers license”. Los Angeles Times says it "was certified gold as a single" but I think that is just for clarity/refers to the certification status. Heartfox (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the necessary changes. It did get a standalone digital release before the soundtrack though so I added it as a promotional single.--NØ 06:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Table

Why is there no rowspan for the year column in the promotional singles table? WP:DISCOGSTYLE is a dormant proposal, and referring to content that is not even in the proposal is not exactly convincing argument. While I certainly respect the editors, it's a bit frustrating that for over a decade (probably a lot longer) rowspan usage is given advice on by like two people max. Let's acknowledge reality: rowspan is not listed in WP:ACCESS. I know they're somewhat important, but whyyyy are these "rules" based on random talk page paragraphs that you have to spend 30 minutes looking for. While I respect the editors, I do not think we should take talk page input as policy. I wish for a local consensus on this, not IJBall refusing rowspan like they do at many other articles based on an essay at WP:FILMOGRAPHY. I'm not saying I'm opposed to not having rowspan, but like can the justifications at least be based off actual stuff? Also, if it's so imperative, why does the album column still use rowspan? Heartfox (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Tables should be designed for maximum readability. There are ways to use rowspan that support this, and more ways that use rowspan that thwart this. Bad rowspan use in 'Awards' tables are some of the most flagrant examples of this. But, the fact is, the entire Discography project has been not just resistant but outright disdainful of the idea "smart" table design (promoting readability), but promoting shitty use of rowspan and pointless shaded and colored templates that draw the eyes to cells with 'null' data rather than to cells with important information. The fact is, 'Discography' tables (and their associated templates) are horribly designed if you want to use rowspan/tables in anything close to an optimal way (for readability) – the way those table should be organized should be 'Album' first ('Album' would then "define" the row element), then 'Year', then 'Song', etc.: doing it this way would allow use of rowspan that is rational, and which would promote ease of readability. (Likewise, the use of 'shaded' and certainly colored templates should be eliminated.) But it's clear that most 'Discography' editors would rather stick to "established" ways than do something sensible. Regardless, on articles I watch, I'm going to stick to table design that promotes readability. P.S. Why wouldn't want to at least conform to WP:DISCOGSTYLE's lack of rowspan in the 'Year' column – what is so terrible about just following that?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall: I'm just confused as to why rowspan is not okay for the year column but is for the album as the table is now. The text above the sample does say "Ultimately, the exact formatting and content of such tables depend on what's best for individual articles". WP:DISCOGSTYLE is a dormant proposal, not a guideline, so I don't see why a discography table couldn't be done differently here. Do you want to propose a redesign of the table below that improves readability below? I'm totally open to seeing new ways of how things could be presented. Heartfox (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Heartfox: I won't lie – in my opinion, rowspan shouldn't be used in the 'Album' column either (at least with how these tables are currently set up). But, because it's at the "end" of the table, it's less objectionable there IMO – it's still relatively readable even rowspanned. Rowspan in the middle of tables is where it really inhibits readability most, especially because you're inevitably going to get cases where the 'Year' rowspan and the 'Album' rowspan won't "line up" which will inhibit easy readability... As for my proposal, it's pretty much what I suggested earlier – the best approach with these tables would be to probably put 'Album' first, then 'Year', then 'Song' and everything else, as it would allow for "nested" use of rowspan, which is the best for readability (this is what I usually try to do with 'Awards' tables). (An alternative for Discography/singles tables would be 'Year' first, then 'Album', then 'Song', etc., but because lots of singles get released the year after an album is released, this is a less good option, IMO.) But when I suggested this to other WP:DISCOGRAPHY editors in the past, they insisted that "Song/single must to go first!!", and they showed no interested in switching to a better table design for better readability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused why this is a topic of contention? I've been editing discographies for years and not using rowspans is by far the minority. I understand that you personally may not like the look of it and that's fine. But I'm not sure this specific article is the place to be fighting this battle, you'd be better off going to more general places of discussion.Gagaluv1 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Also pinging @DarkGlow: since they are active in this dispute and are adamant that other people view the talk page, yet have not voiced their issue here.Gagaluv1 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Because it's pointless trying to have a (wider) discussion with Discography editors about this because, like you, the answer is "This is how it's always been done", with no interest in asking the wider question as to whether it should be done this way and whether a change is in order. Lots of editors have no interest in considering whether rowspan use is necessary and how it's best used – they simply want it used always, willy-nilly, on a WP:ILIKEIT basis. So I only concern myself with articles I watch. This is an article I watch, so I'm not going to roll over on irresponsible or unnecessary rowspan use in tables. Ditto Disgography's generally pointless (or downright unhelpful) insistence on shaded or colored table templates. Besides that, WP:OSE – there is no "consistent format" in Wikipedia articles, and there is no requirement that every Discography table looks like every other Discography table. Ditto Filmography tables. Ditto Awards tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It makes a table harder to read, particularly by people using text to speech readers, to merge things too far in the table. First column is generally OK. In this instance a merged column with just the single date merged from the top to bottom of the table also looks bad with the information, the date, half way down the table and not next to the other information that belongs in the row. It is easier read both for visual impaired using assists and general readers if the date info is in the same row as the title. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I concur with the above comments. It just makes the table harder to read for every reader, especially those using screenreaders. Let's not compromise visually impaired people's reading experience for an aesthetic... – DarkGlow (✉) 01:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the potential accessibility issue, however given that there has not been to my knowledge a broad consensus on the topic, "it's the way it's always been done" is the best argument until such a discussion is had. I also think if we are going to move away from rowspans it should at least be consistant; having rowspans for the album column and not year is just confusing. In any case, the solution here is to create a change in policy and manual of style, not to just edit war on one page out of millions.Gagaluv1 (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Rowspan is acceptable if it's at the very beginning or the very end. Amaury • 02:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there a reason why? I genuinely want to know. If it's accessibility related I understand, but a lot of arguments for and against I've been seeing have been based on editors' personal opinion on aesthetics.Gagaluv1 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
"Stacked" use of rowspan – with the "widest" rowspanned element on a table's left, and then smaller and smaller rowspanning as you go further to the right in the table – has generally be considered the "best" use of 'rowspan' (if you're going to use it) by MOS:ACCESS, not just in terms of text-to-speech readers, but for all readers. I'm drawing a blank on a really good example of this – you usually see this done best when people do 'Awards' tables correctly – but List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence has a less complex example of this done correctly. Contrast this with Sarah Michelle Gellar#Awards and nominations (and this is far from the worst example I have seen) – the way that's done, it's just plum hard to read because the inner use of rowspans don't even conform to the "rows" established – i.e. they don't line up with the rows established by the 'Years'. The more the rowspans fail to line up with the "row establishing" element, the harder it is to read. And this is a real problem with 'Discography' tables, because the 'rowspan' used on the inner 'Year' column will often not line up with the later 'Album' column, and this is in a table where the 'Song' is actually the "row establishing" element and it has a 'rowspan' of one! – Really, with how 'Discography' tables are currently defined/formatted, the best "most readable" version would actually not use any 'rowspan' at all!... So, what I am others are getting at is "using rowspan" reflexively is far less important than the question, "Is this table easily readable?!" As far as I can tell, most 'Discography' editors don't give this any thought at all, and aren't interested in thinking about it. (Along with considering about whether a particular WP:BLP even merits a 'Discography' table – "releases a single" = "'Discography' table"!! is not the correct answer to this question either, but a lot of 'Discography' editors seem to believe that "releases a single" = "'Discography' table" for any BLP.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand the points you're making. I don't really see the issue on that Sarah Michelle Geller page, although that could be because I've spent half my life reading wikipedia and have just trained myself on how to read these tables. I will concede this article to you as you seem adamant that rowspans not be used on this page and I commend you for sticking up for what matters to you. Since this page is the first time I've ever encountered any controversy with the use of rowspans, I will likely continue to use them on the pages I create until there is some sort of consensus to fall back on. I really don't want to ruffle feathers with other editors over stylistic issues like this.Gagaluv1 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I too can read Geller's table fairly well from years of editing, but I can also see that the table is a mess in terms of rowspans. To a lot of non-editors and people who use screenreaders, they would find that difficult to read. – DarkGlow (✉) 11:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Remember, I was saying Gellar's article was far from the most egregious example – it was just the only one I could come up with off the top of my head. But I have seen 'Awards' tables at some articles where the use of rowspan was so pervasive and badly done that the table was basically unreadable. (The problem is that I usually "fix" those as soon as I find them which it makes it hard to remember where I've seen the worst examples of rowspan use.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Disography table variations

While there appears to be a consensus here that the table in its current form is the most readable, (I find tables easy to read on desktop regardless of rowspan, however if a lot of songs are released in the same year, this could be harder to read on the mobile version as you have to scroll down to see what year the first song was actually released in, so that is really the only reason I agree with the current form) my concern here is that (without consensus) this kind of edges on WP:STYLEVAR (if it's not egregious to the point of obvious inaccessibility, then the table in its original form should be used, like how reference styles are. Again, rowspan is not mentioned in MOS:ACCESS!! We should not have to interpret, or follow other editors' interpretations, of talk page discussions as guidelines/policy). Ultimately, "readability" is opinion (not that I disagree that Lawrence's table is easier for me than Gellar's, but other featured lists use different styles). Not that people are, but I don't think users should go around to every article and change the format based on what they think is the most readable. Nonetheless, after reading the above I'm still questioning whether people are actually satisfied with the table table in its current form, or is there an appetite for further changes? Is there interest toward any of the examples below?

Table 1: I think this is what the responses above actually want the table to look like
Year Title Peak chart positions Certifications Album
US CAN IRE NZ
Hot 		SWE UK
2019 "I Think I Kinda, You Know" — — — — — — High School Musical:
The Musical: The Series
"Wondering"
(with Julia Lester) 		— — — — — —
"All I Want" 90 83 40 19 88 72
"Out of the Old" — — — — — —
"Just for a Moment"
(with Joshua Bassett) 		— — — 32 — —
2020 "Random Song Title" — — — — — — TBA
Table 2: I like this one the best because it is the most logical and follows the stacked progression IJBall wrote about (see further response below).
Year Album Title Peak chart positions Certifications
US CAN IRE NZ
Hot 		SWE UK
2019 High School Musical:
The Musical: The Series 		"I Think I Kinda, You Know" — — — — — —
"Wondering"
(with Julia Lester) 		— — — — — —
"All I Want" 90 83 40 19 88 72
"Out of the Old" — — — — — —
"Just for a Moment"
(with Joshua Bassett) 		— — — 32 — —
2020 TBA "Random Song Title" — — — — — —
Table 3: This feels cluttered and impairs readability (at least for me); too much text
Year Album Title Peak chart positions Certifications
US CAN IRE NZ
Hot 		SWE UK
2019 High School Musical: The Musical: The Series "I Think I Kinda, You Know" — — — — — —
High School Musical: The Musical: The Series "Wondering"
(with Julia Lester) 		— — — — — —
High School Musical: The Musical: The Series "All I Want" 90 83 40 19 88 72
High School Musical: The Musical: The Series "Out of the Old" — — — — — —
High School Musical: The Musical: The Series "Just for a Moment"
(with Joshua Bassett) 		— — — 32 — —
2020 TBA "Random Song Title" — — — — — —
Table 4: This I also don't like because my eye is drawn to the album titles rather than the singles
Year Title Peak chart positions Certifications Album
US CAN IRE NZ
Hot 		SWE UK
2019 "I Think I Kinda, You Know" — — — — — — High School Musical: The Musical: The Series
"Wondering"
(with Julia Lester) 		— — — — — — High School Musical: The Musical: The Series
"All I Want" 90 83 40 19 88 72 High School Musical: The Musical: The Series
"Out of the Old" — — — — — — High School Musical: The Musical: The Series
"Just for a Moment"
(with Joshua Bassett) 		— — — 32 — — High School Musical: The Musical: The Series
2020 "Random Song Title" — — — — — — TBA

These are just examples I came up with; obviously the current one could be kept per consensus but I do like Table #2 and I think that is (hopefully) what people were getting at in the replies above. I would have no issue supporting it for this article (and for others). The reader knows to scroll down the first column to find the year, then can safely go to the next column knowing it's the same year, and then move on to the singles and their chart positions. The single columns don't need to be shaded because it is still the focus of attention when there aren't 500 album titles next to them. I also like it because it doesn't ban rowspan completely. I think we should acknowledge that barring rowspan *completely* from discography tables is probably unpopular. I think this is the best compromise as it makes it more readable, while also improving the accessibility. Additionally, having the album title next to the single certifications as some tables currently do never really make sense to me lol... but I would also consider Table 1 acceptable. Just my opinion; just trying to find an end to this conversation so it doesn't continue forever. Heartfox (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Table 2 above is the most accessible for using rowspan. If you think of it as a strict tree structure that branches out in each column and doesn't merge back together again that is easiest to read and understand. The largest span goes in the first column and successive columns break apart what is in the previous columns. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Table 2 is the best iteration IMO (though switching 'Album' and 'Year' columns would be better still, as singles are somewhat often released in the year after albums are released). Table 4 (or the variation where the 'Single' and the 'Year' columns are flipped) is how it should be done if WP:DISCOGRAPHY insists upon going with 'Song' first in their tables, as they insist now – though in Table 4 (and Table 3), the album should only be linked the first time. But I've dealt with enough editors from that project to know there would be massive resistance to adhering to the formatting of either Table 2 or Table 4, or the variations I've suggested... So I will just reiterate again, I doubt there is a "global" solution to this – WP:DISCOGRAPHY editors will still do what they want because "it's always been done this way", and editors like myself will feel no particular compunction to follow practices we think are at best sub-optimal and at worst just plain wrong. I'd like to believe I'm wrong here, but I doubt I am. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Let me just add that I agree with Heartfox that, if you go with Table 1 or Table 4 formatting, the 'Year' column should go first – this actually follows both 'Filmography' and 'Awards' table formatting as well (generally), so it would result in formatting all of these different types of tables similarly, which would be good consistency. But when I previously suggested this formatting to some WP:DISCOGRAPHY editors, they were adamant that their project had decided that "Songs must go first!" and they were completely uninterested in the possibility of switching to 'Year'-first tables. If we could at least get WP:DISCOGRAPHY/WP:DISCOGSTYLE to agree to switch to 'Year'-first formatting, that would actually represent a real positive development, and would likely cool down these 'rowspan' wars significantly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Table 5a
Album Year Title Peak chart positions Certifications
US CAN IRE NZ
Hot 		SWE UK
High School Musical:
The Musical: The Series 		2019 "I Think I Kinda, You Know" — — — — — —
"Wondering"
(with Julia Lester) 		— — — — — —
"All I Want" 90 83 40 19 88 72
"Out of the Old" — — — — — —
"Just for a Moment"
(with Joshua Bassett) 		— — — 32 — —
2021 "Random Song Title" — — — — — —
TBA 2021* "Random Song Title 2" — — — — — —

* or rowspan?

Table 5b
Album Year Title Peak chart positions Certifications
US CAN IRE NZ
Hot 		SWE UK
High School Musical:
The Musical: The Series 		2019 "I Think I Kinda, You Know" — — — — — —
2019 "Wondering"
(with Julia Lester) 		— — — — — —
2019 "All I Want" 90 83 40 19 88 72
2019 "Out of the Old" — — — — — —
2019 "Just for a Moment"
(with Joshua Bassett) 		— — — 32 — —
2021 "Random Song Title" — — — — — —
Non-album single 2021 "Random Song Title 2" — — — — — —

I added the above with versions of how it could look with the album as the row instead of the year. I know it's kind of getting back to the original argument but I do prefer Table 5a over Table 5b because I do not have to do as much work. With Table 5c and the individual years, I have to spend time reading each cell (rather than it being grouped for me) when it doesn't necessarily need to be that way because the album row column is already right next to it. Also, Table 5a follows the stacked progression format you indicated was nicely done in a featured list. Same years for different albums also don't need to be rowspanned I don't think. So personally, I would support Table 5a, then Table 2, then Table 5b, but all I think are better than what is currently being done in terms of both readability and accessibility.

I have also wondered why these tables are never sortable? Is there a particular reason why? I think it would be beneficial to press a button and see the various success levels of an artist's songs on a particular chart. I would also like to point out that there is no WP:DISCOGRAPHY guideline that prevents any one table style being used over another. Even WP:DISCOGSTYLE, which is a dormant proposal and hence has no bearing, states "the exact formatting and content of such tables depend on what's best for individual articles". All we need is a local consensus; it doesn't need to be global if there isn't a dispute on other pages. Heartfox (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I like Table 2 as well! However I still think it is a bit strange to use a completely different format than every other mainstream artists discography table. I would love to see the format consistent with other tables on wikipedia. D_bovair1988 (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
FTR, this Table 5a is actually acceptable in MOS:ACCESS-type terms – that's proper use of "nested" rowspan. Again, if we could get WP:DISCOGRAPHY/WP:DISCOGSTYLE to agree to Table 5a-type formatting for all of their 'Singles' Discography tables, I would also find this a very positive development. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I prefer the original style of discography on Wikipedia (Table 1). See Taylor Swift singles discography and Lorde discography. The song titles are !scoped, then the year (with rowspan), then peak chart positions, then certifications, then album (with rowspan). I say this is normal discography because almost every discography page is like this by default. Shawn Mendes discography, Camila Cabello discography, Fifth Harmony discography, Little Mix discography, Ariana Grande discography, Drake discography, Lady Gaga discography, Justin Bieber discography, Selena Gomez discography, and I can find many, many more. I know other stuff exists, but from a reader's viewpoint, it would make sense if everything was the same between articles. Even as an editor, I have gotten used to this style of discography. When I go to a discography article, I don’t even have to look at the column titles, I just know which column is which. Therefore, I have gotten accustomed to this style. I don’t find any problems with it, and if there are, they should be presented at WT:DISCOG, as majority of the articles use this style. As well, if you take a look at WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Samples, the song chart shows what I am explaining. (And yes, I read WP:DISCOGSTYLE#Ignore all rules, but I don’t see any good reasons to deviate from the "original" style.) D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
You mean the same WP:DISCOGSTYLE that doesn't rowspan the years column?! Frankly, I think Taylor Swift singles discography looks awful with the 'Year' rowspanned like that. And, yes – "every Discography" table looks like that because they all ignore WP:DISCOGSTYLE (notice also the latter's It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible... – I'm guessing nobody cares about this part!) and because no one has seriously tried to challenge WP:DISCOGRAPHY orthodoxy probably because they don't want the trouble. So Discography editors keep going down the rat hole like lemmings. But Discography tables are generally awful IMO, worse than other similar tables from other WP's (except for 'Awards' tables with ridiculously irresponsible use of rowspan, but those are more the exception than the rule, thankfully). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this discussion is so much wider and large scale than Rodrigo's table and the dormant WP:DISCOGSTYLE needs to be reactivated with a discussion. As of right now, all we have is personal preferences (from both sides), and we need a concrete guideline after a proper discussion. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
In my personal opinion I think it more important for readers that the article itself be consistent on how all the tables in the article are presented. Consistency of discography tables between article is less important to a reader than consistency of all the tables in a specific article. In other words filmography and discography tables should match in a bio article. In other tables year is first and for a bio article that is the most important item as we are listing what the subject did in order of when they did it. What they did that year is secondary, not primary. In a dedicated discography article it makes more sense to follow other discography articles as in those articles the project is most primary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall: Since my comments, I decided to read previous comments past the tables. You say that albums should be first, then years, then songs, etc. If rowspan should be from the most-spanned to the least-spanned, then year should be first. As well, having the album first wouldn’t work well with {{TableTBA}} or {{Non-album single}} as it would look really weird. On mobile especially, since we see:
Example
Example !scope column 1 Example !scope column 2
Example !scope row Not !scope row
Non-album single Not !scope row
On desktop, it’s a bit different. But do you see how different those greys are? It’s a subtle but frustrating change and looks super ugly. @DarkGlow: I agree. I’m all for changing the table, but only if all the other pages change too; that way, every discography table can be the same. @Geraldo Perez: That’s an awesome idea! I think that the year should be first if we’re gonna rowspan it, per comments made above, but if we don’t wanna span, I do agree that the main work should be first. If it’s filmography, the film should be first. If it’s a song discography, the song should be first. If it’s an album discography, the album should be first, etc. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Table 5a is the best in terms of MOS:ACCESS/readability – 'Albums' will generally be the "largest rowspanning" element, then 'Year(s)', then nearly everything else after these will have a rowpsan of 1. Table 2 is probably next best table format, at long as you don't try to rowspan the album beyond the row-defining 'Year' element, and is a fine alternative. Table 1 isn't great, but I wouldn't object to it as a compromise solution over what WP:DISCOGRAPHY currently does in their tables (like the examples you linked to above). There is definitely something to be said for a "Year"-first formatting like in Table 1 (or Table 4), as it would make WP:DISCOGSTYLE tables consistent with (most) Filmography and (most) Awards tables. We actually have done tables in that format at some other articles (but for more "minor" singing artists). But, like I said – when I suggested switching to that format to other WP:DISCOGRAPHY editors in the past, they pretty much flat-out rejected the idea.
On the separate issue of {{Non-album single}} and {{TBA}}, my opinion is that WP:DISCOGSTYLE shouldn't be using shaded/colored templates at all (why are you drawing the eye to the "null" table cells instead of the cells that actually contain important info?!!) – IMO, the project should either remove the shading/coloring from templates like {{Non-album single}} and {{TBA}}, or switch to using {{TableTBA}} instead. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall: okay, that all makes sense. When given the choice, the "Year"-first formatting makes the most sense to me. I just don't get why we would intentionally make the album the standout point on a singles/songs discography. As well, I agree with your {{TBA}} vs {{TableTBA}} argument (that purple is hideous, I try to remove it from every table I can) and your {{Non-album single}} one. If the "Album"-first table is generally what we see at the RfC at WP:DISCOG, then I think getting rid of the colour at {{Non-album single}} would be best (or have an alternative like "Table non-album single"), otherwise we would have that contrast like I showed above. {{TableTBA}} adapts to the colour behind it, so if I were to place TableTBA on a !scope row, the background would turn grey, the same grey as all the others. This is what I think should happen to the other template as well. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC proposal

@IJBall, Gagaluv1, Geraldo Perez, DarkGlow, Amaury, D bovair1988, and Doggy54321: If I were to open an RFC regarding the formatting of singles discography tables, would you consider the five options at User:Heartfox/sandbox acceptable/fair to vote on, or is there anything I should add/edit/remove before doing so? Heartfox (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Too many options is generally a bad idea for WP:RfC's. Your Option 1 is already what they all do, and Option 2 is what's at WP:DISCOGSTYLE, so I wouldn't even include those I think – the proposal should be either switch to Option 3 or 4 (while Option 5 is actually the best one, I'm not sure I'd even include it)... But I can predict how this will go – WP:DISCOGRAPHY editors are likely to vote en masse against any changes (i.e. sticking with Option 1, and ignoring that Option 2 is actually what's at WP:DISCOGSTYLE and what they should be doing), and non-WP:DISCOGRAPHY editors probably won't care enough to !vote. If you go this route, I would advertise it as widely as possible. Even though I think Option 5 is the best option, Option 3 is the most likely to actually gain some support over the current format, because it does better match up with 'Filmography' and 'Awards' tables formatting. But even if one of Options 3–5 can be included as a viable alternative at WP:DISCOGSTYLE, that would be a victory. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense. Heartfox (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall: when you say "viable alternative", do you mean an acceptable alternative to the current widely-used format, or officially replacing that format? Heartfox (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Heartfox: ooh, good idea to open the RfC! @IJBall:: I say include everything but Option 1. Because, if no one likes any of the three tables, no one is gonna participate in the discussion, and we go back to exactly where we are now. I like your viable alternative suggestion. Even if we don’t get consensus to change everything, we still have an alternative on WP:DISCOGSTYLE. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Heartfox: "Viable" was probably a poor choice of words – what I really meant was "allowed alternative" format. What I mean is, for example, while it's not included in the 'Filmography' examples, 'Title'-first Filmography tables are allowed and are sometimes done (though I can't find any right now, so it's possible many of these have been switched back to 'Year'-first format). So, what I'm getting at is if we can at least get one of Options 3–5 as an "allowed alternative" to the predominant Option 1 table format, that would actually be progress. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Heartfox: I like your idea! If we are looking to find an alternative to the established norm then I think including options 3, 4 and 5 is a good idea. D_bovair1988 (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies has an RFC for a possible alternative format for singles discography tables. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding earlier edits which removed her birthday sourced by a couple of her tweets

These edits by Doggy54321, removing her birthday and the tweets sourcing it, and citing policy regarding not using primary sources to back birthdays (which I believe is applicable to things like public or court documents), I am in agreement with IJBall on the reliability of those tweets per WP:ABOUTSELF, as they come directly from her social media, verified account. That aside, I am also aware that there was another source already in the discography section of the article, from Billboard magazine, which was not only backing her number-one (U.S. peak) ranking with "Drivers License",[1] but also her birthday. So a secondary source may have applied here. (See where it says "Four just before '04" in the Billboard source, more than halfway down.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Sorry, I completely forgot about ABOUTSELF. Thank you for providing us with a secondary source. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
FTR, what WP:BLPPRIMARY is referring to is things like the "California Birth Index", or sources like that can sometimes be found on genealogical websites – IOW, "public" or governmental records indicating a (presumed) DOB. Those are both "primary sources" (and not from the individual/BLP subject themselves), and run afoul of WP:BLPPRIVACY. WP:ABOUTSELF is basically saying that if it comes from the subject themselves, BLPPRIVACY is obviously not an issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall: Oh, ok, that makes total sense. Thanks to both of you for the clarification! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Trust, Gary (January 19, 2021). "Olivia Rodrigo's 'Drivers License' Debuts at No. 1 on Billboard Hot 100". Billboard. Retrieved January 19, 2021.

Songwriter?

Does Olivia qualify as a songwriter after her work with "Drivers License"? Why or why not? --Heymid (contribs) 19:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

See #Songwriter above. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: The URL ([1]you posted for Rodrigo's debut album is broken. When I viewed the page, there's a message saying "OOOPS, SORRY! WE COULDN'T FIND IT You have requested a page or file which doesn't exist". Is there another source we can replace the current one? Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 15:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

JackReynolds, thanks for pointing that out. They deleted it and there is no archive so I have removed it.--NØ 15:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

*O*R

IJBall, I have used Apple Music as a source on several featured lists with no one raising an issue. Can you please elaborate how an album preorder isn't a good enough source to use for its release date?--NØ

Yes, the Discography editors are incredibly lax on this score, lazily using primary source links like iTunes, when everything should actually be secondarily sourced, esp. for anything to be released in the future. It's amazing that people are getting away with doing that on a WP:FL – it's another knock against that process, which I already don't trust, frankly... It's not enough that a song or album "exist" – it needs to be shown to be notable, which means secondary source coverage. P.S. This isn't about WP:OR – it's about WP:Primary sources vs. WP:Secondary sources. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

change american to filipino-american 2001:4453:3A7:9E00:A42C:5F71:B971:3771 (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:ETHNICITY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Link to "Good 4 U" page

In the first paragraph of the page, and where it shows her singles, someone should change "Good 4 U" to "Good 4 U." [EDIT: Thank you, @Pupsterlove02!] 2600:1700:DA60:E010:90F1:9E8D:386B:A6D9 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 18:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


Heritage

Hello, I think it'll be nice if someone added a bit about her heritage in the personal life section. She talks about how her dad is Filipino here. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.128.64.88 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7RKXA7l36k

Separate Page For Discography

Should we consider making a separate page dedicated to Rodrigos discography or should we wait untill her discography is bigger LaVozSA (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@LaVozSA: For right at this moment, I think we should wait until her discographies grows. Since she only has few songs out, it wouldn't make sense to make a page dedicated to it. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 12:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
There is also no need to split the discography yet, as it is not that big. We should definitely wait quite some time before starting a discography page. Even with the release of her album, not much will come with it (maybe some songs in the "Other charted songs" section, maybe another single, that's it). Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

Add in that Olivia Rodrigo even credited Taylor Swift on multiple songs on her album Sour in the musical influence section. 2600:8805:C888:C000:25FE:5D03:8DC7:7056 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

She credited Taylor and Jack Antonoff in one song since she sampled "New Year's Day"; that's mentioned on the article for Sour. It doesn't need to be written here too, since it's hardly something to write home about… – DarkGlow • 11:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Rodrigo calls Swift her biggest influence. That covers what you're saying. We don't have to add extra superfluous stuff. Regards. BawinV (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

Change her instruments from vocals to vocals, guitar, and piano. 98.242.76.117 (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on rowspan use in the discography section

Hi! Could someone please clarify exactly why we are not supposed to use rowspan in the discography section? I would like clarification, especially since IJBall has started to call the addition of rowspan in this specific article "WP:DE", and I am just curious as to why it is disruptive. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 03:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me, Doggy54321. I have taken this article off my watchlist, and no longer intend to edit it. But if you honestly want to know the issue, basically, use of rowspan the way Discography editors use it in the inner 'Year' column specifically inhibits readability (for all readers) especially when also paired with (variable) rowspan in the outer 'Album' column, and it also used to be a major problem for screenreaders – you will notice that the example in WP:DISCOGSTYLE purposely doesn't include rowspan in the 'Year' column. But the bulk of WP:DISCOGRAPHY and WP:POPMUSIC editors have also made very clear over the years that they don't care what anyone else thinks, and will keep doing whatever they want. As previous discussions at this very Talk page have demonstrated. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that. I'm sorry for the ping. Thank you for clarifying! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Album

I think it’s important to note that Olivia Rodrigo broke Ariana Grande’s record for the largest streaming week in history for a pop female album. Joyasaxena21 (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Joyasaxena21: Source, please? BawinV (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Paper Magazine Joyasaxena21 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Joyasaxena21: Please copy-paste the link here. BawinV (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.papermag.com/olivia-rodrigo-sour-record-2653146724.html Joyasaxena21 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Joyasaxena: Thank you. This is added to the Commercial Performance section in Sour. Regards. BawinV (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Rowspans on discography

I think we should add rowspans for the years in the discography section. I personally think right now it looks messy as there is no need to have the same year written 8 times (in the other charted songs section). LaVozSA (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  • In mobile view, where "Drivers License", for example, is a very tall row because of the amount of certifications, it is easier to read because you don't have to scroll down to see the year. However, I never understood why people refuse to remove the rowspan from the album column but argue the years must be listed separately. At least be consistent. Heartfox (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
It has to do with MOS:ACCESSABILITY, so they are usually avoided. If they are used, however, based on consensus, rowspans are only acceptable on either the first or last column, though we usually do it on the first column. In many cases, the first column is years, though that is not always the case, like here. Amaury • 18:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I also think we should add rowspans, if people argue it goes against MOS:ACCESSABILITY then go to every discography page and remove the hundreds of rowspans used. Having the same year listed multiple times (up to 8 in the other charted songs section) is extremely messy and unappealing to the eye; discography pages should be simple and easy to read. Not to mention a majority of the editors that argue against rowspans spend a majority of their day on Wikipedia, at this point it seems like its "their way or the highway" eventhough no other discography page except Olivia's is constantly arguing about rowspans. Lets keep it consistent and simple and add them back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.245.98 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Every other article having the wrong use of rowspan is not the issue in question here, Rodrigo's is. Don't like it? Get the guideline changed. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
What guideline are you referring to? Heartfox (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
MOS:ACCESSABILITY. Amaury • 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

At the time I'm writing this, I added the rowspans, they may be removed. I just don't understand why Taylor Swifts discography page features rowspans, Katy Perry discography feature rowspans, many artists pages has rowspans and there's no problem with it, so why can't it just stay here on Olivia's page LaVozSA (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no reason whatsoever why this page in particular is unique from the other ones. If we have this random rule on this page, there's nothing suggesting we shouldn't have it for the other ones. It's a discography table, and we don't need the years to be shown 8 different times. Also, every other article being "normal" in terms of their use of rowspan doesn't make the use of rowspan on this page justifiable whatsoever. It also does not suggest their usage being "wrong" by any means, and the followup of "Don't like it? Get the guideline changed" is petty, unneeded, and is an indication of the person in authority of this page is biased, and applied this "rule" to the page simply because they've been monitoring it. After all, the "after gaining consensus on the Talk page" suggests that they are aware that they could be wrong, and in that event, would allow the editors to do what they otherwise would've done in the first place. Sounds like "MOS:HYPOCRISY" to me...Don't change it back. Trevortnidesserpedx (talk) • 4:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Songwriter

Multiple sources called her a songwriter. Then why is it not included in her infobox or lead sentence? BawinV (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@IJBall: You're abusing WP:FORUM, which only talks about personal opinions. Songwriting is a profession of Rodrigo according to several verified publications. My opinion has no job here. How does this constitute WP:FORUM? BawinV (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: "she has cowriting credits on one song" FALSE. She has three songs, out of which "All I Want" lists her as the sole songwriter in its credits. Irrespective of this, multiple sources explicitly call her a songwriter. here, here, here et cetera. BawinV (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I would class Rodrigo as a singer-songwriter, since she does not write songs for other artists as a profession. Although it is early in her music career, she has been described by RS as a singer-songwriter, and she has had predominant writing credits in her two (released) songs. – DarkGlow (✉) 12:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@DarkGlow: Do you mean you "would not class Rodrigo as a singer-songwriter"? @BawinV: Whether it's WP:NOTFANSITE or WP:NOTPROMO, it amounts to the same thing – "fan" editors are always pushing for "resume bloat" and list "professions" for subjects which either aren't primary or aren't relevant. She absolutely is not a "singer-songwriter" as I think DarkGlow is saying. Doing something once doesn't make it a "career" either, especially a notable one to list in the lede. Writing one song by herself does not make "songwriter" a notable career, any more than directing one episode of a TV series makes one a "director". Is Rodrigo notable for an "actress"? Certainly. Is Rodrigo notable for being a "singer"? It's still early, but by now, probably yes. Is she notable for being a "songwriter"? Certainly not! Most people would not even know that she does that. Maybe later on if she writes more songs, but not now. And, again, WP:ONUS applies – just become some "sources" (and you never have indicated which sources) call her a "songwriter" does not put any obligation on Wikipedia to list that as a notable "career" or "profession" in the lede. This can be mentioned elsewhere in prose, but it's not a ledeworthy profession at this time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
My first comment was written on a few hours of awful sleep so let me completely rephrase it – I wouldn't ever class Rodrigo as a "songwriter" until she writes for another artist, such as Ariana Grande does. I would class Rodrigo as a "singer-songwriter", but only in time, when she has several notable, charting songs that she has penned. She is certainly on her way to being classed as such, but like what IJBall stated, doing something 1-2 times does not carve out a career narrative for the subject. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall: "and you never have indicated which sources" There are literally three sources that I've cited above. BawinV (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, missed those because they weren't inline. The only one of those worth anything is Rolling Stone, and they use "singer-songwriter" all of once in the article (and "songwriter" by itself not at all). But again, singer-songwriter has a very specific definition on Wikipedia, WP:ONUS applies, and one example of this does not make it ledeworthy. Bottom line: She is not notable as either a "songwriter" or as a "singer-songwriter" at this point. That may change in the future, but it's where things are right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Revisited: April 2021

Seems like lately there has been more coverage and focus on her songwriting now that "Drivers License" has been out for some time, and that she has a second song. For me, I feel that she should still definitely be labelled as one on her page, but I think it is best if we just all wait it out until her album comes out to see if her status as a songwriter will be cemented or not. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 20:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Songwriter is reserved for people who write multiple songs, by themselves. It's not for people who co-write songs, or only contribute some lyrics. At this point in her career, Rodrigo almost certainly doesn't qualify, and listing it is as an actual "career/occupation" for her is YA Wikipedia example of "resume inflation". Maybe in a few years, but not now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall: Then why is Justin Bieber listed as a singer-songwriter when he only writes with writing camps? There was a discussion about that at Talk:Justice (Justin Bieber album) about this, if you could contribute to that, that would be great. As well, I agree with your points, Rodrigo isn't quite a singer-songwriter just yet. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Because, frankly, a lot of editors, esp. in the musicians area, seem to be editing things more from the standpoint as fans than as objective Wikipedia editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
That's what I've been thinking. From what I have seen happen to other editors, puffery writing is actually really easy, and, once a habit has been made, it's hard to break. Some editors try to get little side jobs like songwriting and production on the same level as what the artist is known for (usually just singing but it could also be acting, songwriting, etc), and that needs to stop, even though it's all coming from a good place. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I just want to put it straight that I am still viewing this from an objective standpoint, and that I am not engaging in the POV of a "fan". That is why I am willing to wait till the album is out so we can all see the songwriting credits and see if she has written all of her songs on her debut song as the lead credit songwriter, before we decide on a consensus. (P.S. I don't think we need to "wait a few years" to properly qualify someone as a songwriter, especially if every single music media outlet out there is calling her one, and if her songwriting is the basis of the success behind her career. I think self-penning the lyrics to all her tracks in her debut album would definitely qualify her as a "singer-songwriter", which would be different from "singer and songwriter"). (edit conflict) – I do agree with Doggy though, I think some editors push it a little too far with adding the side gigs and stuff. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 21:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
1) Writing "all of the lyrics", but not the songs (i.e. melodies) themselves means, by definition, she's not "songwriter". 2) She absolutely does not appear to be a "singer-songwriter" – please look at that the discussion Doggy54321 linked to upthread – that includes some very good examples of actual "singer-songwriters". (Again, where did so many music editors get the idea that singer + songwriter = "singer-songwriter" – the latter has a very specific definition, that very few "singers + songwriters" actually meet.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, when she releases her album, we will need to re-assess this. But, considering she has written/co-written four songs out of her 13-song discography (including all the HSMTMTS songs for which she is credited as an artist on), and only wrote one out of those four by herself, I think it's a bit puffy of us to equally credit her as a singer, songwriter and actress. If she writes all the songs on her album (which she has said she has), that would change the numbers to 13 songs written out of a 22-song discography (59%), which is better than 4/13 (31%). Even if sources already call her a singer-songwriter, it just feels puffy. I think the best move is to wait until the album drops, see what she is credited for (keep in mind that singer-songwriter means she needs to play instruments as well), and go from there. Update/Respond to IJBall: IJB is 100% correct. Songwriter = lyrics & melodies. Some labels like to put this on physical releases instead of "songwriter" (see Positions (album) for an example). Singer-songwriter refers to someone who sings on their songs, writes their songs and plays instruments on their songs. Taylor Swift is the only person I can think of right now that qualifies as a singer-songwriter. Singer & songwriter is a combination of a singer and a songwriter, nothing more. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC) (updated 21:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC))
(edit conflict) I believe she also writes her own melodies (per NYT interview, 3:23 mark), but it's true, maybe it's still too early to tell if she is one. I just wanted to re-open this discussion because the previous discussion occurred only a mere few days since her song was released, and now that she has an upcoming album scheduled for release, I was just thinking that that could possibly be indicate if she can prove her status as an actual singer-songwriter, or not. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 21:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree that this discussion should be re-visited when the Sour album releases. It is expected that Olivia will co-write every song on this album, as she has emphasised her involvement in songwriting on multiple occasions. The k nine 2 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Revisited after album release: May 2021

@Nahnah4, IJBall, and The k nine 2: The album has been released, so I thought we could revisit this. Rodrigo has co-writing credits on all the tracks but two, which she wrote by herself. Thoughts? D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Rodrigo has the lead writer credits on every track, which alone is enough for "songwriter" to be added to her professions. The self-written tracks are an added bonus. Apart from this, Rodrigo had stressed that she is, first and foremost, a songwriter, in almost every interview regarding the album: Interview magazine, Elle, The Face, NME, Billboard, Nylon etc. BawinV (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think we can officially call her a singer-songwriter. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree with attached references above that "songwriter" should be added as one of her professions since she co-writes every track on her album. The k nine 2 (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

SOUR has been released, Rodrigo should definitely be listed as a songwriter. She has written a part of every song, and to not list her as this would be misinformation. TheWeekdayz (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't necessarily be misinformation, as not listing her as a songwriter is not false or inaccurate information (per Google). Taylor Swift co-produced every single song on her last release, but that doesn't necessarily make her a record producer. I am not arguing against the fact that Rodrigo is a songwriter, but I am just saying it is not misinformation to not list her as such. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 03:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

For the zillionth time, not all "singers" and "songwriters" are "singer-songwriters" – the latter has a very specific definition that few actually meet. While I sill think adding "songwriter" is WP:TOOSOON I'm not going to bother to fight that, but I absolutely oppose adding "singer-songwriter" at this time... And, FTR, I also absolutely agree with/support this recent reversion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@IJBall: Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material, including lyrics and melodies. Rodrigo does write, compose and perform her own musical material, including both lyrics and melodies, so how is she not a singer-songwriter? For example, in this recent interview, she played a voice memo from her phone that shows her performing the first version of "Brutal" to Dan Nigro. "Brutal"'s writers are Rodrigo and Nigro, so we can come to the conclusion that Rodrigo must have written that first version, both lyrics and melodies, by herself, as Nigro had not heard the song up until that point (BTW, I really don't care that this is synthesis, I'm trying to prove a point). Then, she goes onto detail how Nigro remarked how she could write a better verse, so they wrote it together. Furthermore, two songs on the album ("Enough for You" and "Happier") were written solely by Rodrigo, which means she wrote both the lyrics and melodies for both songs without any help. So, could you please explain why you don't think Rodrigo is a singer-songwriter? Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Did you read the entire lede?

Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material, including lyrics and melodies. In the United States, the category is built on the folk-acoustic tradition,[1] although this role has transmuted through different eras of popular music. Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano. (emphasis mine)

She needs to regularly play something like a guitar (and only a guitar) while singing material she wrote. Usually, it takes years to get a reputation as one of these. In pop, pretty much only Taylor Swift does, AFAIK. Regardless, it's WP:OR to call her that if RS's don't (and, no – a single RS calling her that doesn't cut it) – "singer and songwriter" is fully sufficient for now... Can we please stop trying to resume-inflate our BLP's, especially those of relatively new musical artists?! If they are any of the things people keep wanting to add to the articles, eventually WP:RSs will make that clear. In the meantime, WP:NOHURRY and WP:V apply. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
And, while we're on the subject, I also support this recent reversion by Amaury – short descriptions are supposed to be exactly as it sounds (i.e. as short as possible), and Rodrigo's notability comes primarily from being an actress and a singer, with any "songwriting" aspect being completely secondary at this point. For now, the short description should be restricted to "actress and singer". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall: Where in the article it says that you have to provide your own accompaniment, especially when the article says singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment? If you look at credits, I don't see Swift, Lorde, Adele or any other singer-songwriter often providing sole accompaniment on tracks. Besides, WP:WINARS, we shouldn't treat an article (regardless of the fact that it is a vital article) like it's some sort of sacred text, let's move on. To your other point, I think that the short description and the lead sentence should provide the same information (example), so I believe that you're either in or out on an occupation, not "we could add it here but not here". I think this because lead sentences and short descriptions are both supposed to summarize what the subject of the article is in a few words, so I don't see how one summary should include something that another summary shouldn't. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Just wanna add, If IJBall is the only one opposing this, we could still technically add "singer-songwriter" because, you know, WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not sure why you are so incredibly dogmatic about this and you just keep insisting that her songwriting is "secondary" when her songwriting is the sole reason behind her ENTIRE success – basically she is known to be a singer-songwriter at this point. It doesn't matter what you think because the definition fits her. You can't just be a "singer" if you're the sole songwriter of your own material – which in fact, is already pretty rare in pop music even. You want performances of her playing an instrument while singing the material she wrote? Well, here's some of them: Jimmy Fallon, Grammy Museum, MTV Push, NYT interview (3:26 mark), this performance of her playing "only a guitar" like you asked – these should all be enough evidence and fits your own definition of a "singer-songwriter". It's also not WP:OR because major publications have also labelled her a "singer-songwriter": per NME, NYT, Elle, Billboard and Rolling Stone. I'm not sure what you're on about, when all of these are easily accessible to you on the Internet and you don't even put in the slightest effort to look it up at all. Cheers, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 07:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Would also like to call BawinV into this discussion for his thoughts on this. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 07:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not know why IJBall is using Wikipedia as a source for Rodrigo's profession as a singer-songwriter (a Wikipedia article is never a source, especially when the singer-songwriter is not even a good article?) when there are many sources from reliable sites calling her a singer-songwriter? The age of an artist's career has nothing to do with the artist's profession. IJBall's argument here feels like it's treating "singer-songwriter" as some kind of legendary accomplishment that is bestowed to one very deep into their career. No; singer-songwriter is just a person who writes (both melodies & lyrics) on musical instruments and sings their songs. Rodrigo is very clearly a singer-songwriter. And our editors' personal opinions shouldn't even matter when, beyond the above linked videos of Rodrigo writing and playing her music, there are written sources out there: New York Times designates her a "singer-songwriter and actress", and here's more: 1, 2, 3, 4. I say let's stick to the sources. BawinV (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe we have reached a consensus here, and BawinV has added "songwriter" in the article. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 10:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: Yes. Every contributor to this discussion (including myself just in case I didn't make it clear) supports the addition of "songwriter". D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Which wasn't the issue we were discussing – nobody is now objecting to putting "singer and songwriter" in the lede (I don't like it, but I have withdrawn any formal objection to this). But that's not the same thing as singer-songwriter, though nobody here seems to care about the distinction. So, whatever... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I know that. I was clarifying, just in case Nahnah, Bawin or anyone else thought that we came to a consensus to add "singer-songwriter" to the article, which is not true. Also – I recognize that there is a distinction between "singer and songwriter" and "singer-songwriter". Because of the fact that different users have told me different things, I'm confused as to what the distinction is, but that doesn't change the fact that I know there is a distinction. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 13:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

TIME calls Rodrigo a singer-songwriter too. There are too many sources for us to not address her as one in the article. If this discussion is gonna stall or become inactive, then in 3 days or so, I'll be bold and add singer-songwriter to all her articles. Regards. BawinV (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Another source, this time Billboard, referring to Rodrigo as a singer-songwriter. The subject of this discussion topic is very strongly sourced; and since there isn't any opposition, I'm making the edit. BawinV (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@IJBall, Doggy54321, and Nahnah4: Please respond. Thank You. BawinV (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I also oppose as per IJBall. (PS: If you want your pings to go through, you may want to sign your posts.) I have no idea what you mean by "but this is the sourced original version." Unless I missed something, the WP:STATUSQUO for this article had "singer and songwriter," not singer-songwriter. Please follow WP:BRD, especially when there is no clear consensus and there is opposition, even before mine, in this discussion, despite your claims that there isn't. Amaury • 08:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Amaury: Being silent from time to time, trying to stall a discussion, is equal to zero opposition, in my opinion. Anyways, How do you oppose this too? On what basis? How can one oppose this when there are numerous sources from reliable publications calling her a "singer-songwriter"? Looks like WP:OR to me. BawinV (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall and Amaury: Wall Street Journal is the umpteenth source to call her a singer-songwriter. BawinV (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall and Amaury: Please respond. Thank You. BawinV (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I have taken this article off my watchlist, so please stop pining me. I will just reiterate again, that singer-songwriter has a very specific definition that Rodrigo probably doesn't merit at this time, WP:ONUS applies (IOW, just because sources use certain terminology (which, with the popular press, is used incorrectly as often as not) does not mean we are obliged to repeat that), and my strong preference is to list her in the lede as a "singer and songwriter" for right now (it is patently ridiculous to claim that this is "WP:OR" – do you even know what the term means?!), until she actually establishes a reputation as being a bona fide "singer-songwriter" a la Taylor Swift or somebody like that. I would have less objection to using the term singer-songwriter in the body of the article, but I don't believe it belongs in the lede at this time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@IJBall: (i) "singer-songwriter has a very specific definition that Rodrigo probably doesn't merit at this time" is not a fact. "Rodrigo probably doesn't merit at this time" as opposed to 10+ reliable sources calling her a singer-songwriter. What is this if it's not WP:OR? (ii) I don't understand "until she actually establishes a reputation as being a bona fide "singer-songwriter" a la Taylor Swift or somebody like that"? She has already though? Tell me how exactly she has not? On what basis? If not, then what is pending? There are umpteen sources, all of which are reliable sources for music, all of which you claim to have used the term "incorrectly" (which is very funny); Billboard, Time, Rolling Stone, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times are all incorrect about Rodrigo but you are right her? This literally has nothing to do with WP:ONUS, you're simply misusing it. WP:STICKTOSOURCE please. BawinV (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
You've been asked by IJBall to stop pinging him. Any further pings to him, or me, for that matter, will result in a harassment report being filed against you, so unless you want that to happen, I suggest you drop the stick. I have this page on my watchlist, and I am keeping up with this discussion and will respond when I something to respond with. Singer-songwriter has a very strict definition, and these sources are actually just throwing the term around willy-nilly without understanding when it's actually appropriate to use the term. And yes, the onus is on you. IJBall is not misusing it. Amaury • 17:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree. I do not agree that these sources are actually just throwing the term around willy-nilly without understanding; not your place to say that. You are not a reliable source, but they are. If you have such great understanding of the term "singer-songwriter" (not that it matters), then please enlighten other editors here so that we could understand the point you're trying to make? Please show us the "very strict" definition of singer-songwriter? BawinV (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this may need an RfC; another editor changed "singer-songwriter" to just "singer" at the album's article [1]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: This topic definitely needs a Rfc. BawinV (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Adding this for navigation through sources.
  1. Pop's next great singer-songwriter – Nylon
  2. The meteoric rise of a teenage singer-songwriter – Vanity Fair
  3. With her newly released debut album Sour making a big splash, Disney star and singer-songwriter Olivia Rodrigo has shown the world that she's no one-hit wonder – Los Angeles
  4. The US singer-songwriter first scored the chart double last month, and became the youngest ever artist to do so – NME
  5. Olivia Rodrigo's Sour marks the arrival of a singer-songwriter to watch – The Philadelphia Inquirer
  6. The singer-songwriter and star of High School Music: The Musical: The Series – MTV
  7. The 18-year-old Disney star and hit singer-songwriter – Time
  8. The 18-year-old singer-songwriter's debut album Sour (out now) is raw, honest and catchy – USA Today
  9. Olivia Rodrigo easily topped the Rolling Stone Artists 500 chart for the second straight week following the release of her debut album, Sour. Though the singer-songwriter's total streams fell from 283.7 million to 210.5 million for the week of May 28th through June 3rd, that was still plenty to hold off her closest competitors. – Rolling Stone
  10. Olivia Rodrigo becomes youngest solo artist ever to score Official UK Chart Double with Sour and "Good 4 U". The US singer-songwriter's Sour scores the biggest opening week of 2021 and sets a streaming record. – Official Charts Company
  11. The Disney star and singer-songwriter hits No. 1 – The Wall Street Journal
  12. On top of everything else going on in the life of the world's busiest 18-year-old, the star singer-songwriter-actress just moved out of her parents' house. – Billboard
  13. The singer-songwriter and actress, 18, explains how she wrote her first-ever single – The New York Times

BawinV (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Biased selection of countries in discography

Hello, I noticed that the discography table completely misses three of the top-5 biggest music countries such as Japan, Germany, and France and favors to include very marginal markets such as Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand (these markets are 10 times smaller). I understand that chart positions in these countries are less than "1" and including the former three countries will make the table look less "pretty" but isn't Wikipedia more about fair representation and objectiveness? I would suggest to include at least Germany and France - these two are more or less "standard" on discography pages (I know there is no standard). Thanks! p.s. A fan of both Wikipedia and Olivia here --138.246.3.137 (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree that we should change the table to include these three countries, regardless of chart positions. The only reason I would not want something to be included is if none of the "Other charted songs" songs charted in that section, as the whole point of the songs being there is that they did chart. Great idea! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 10:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I would switch out Denmark and Norway for Germany and France. Yes "Deja Vu" did a little worse in those two, but including Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, but not France or Germany is odd for an international artist like Rodrigo. Heartfox (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Portrait image requests

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Change no picture to a picture of Olivia. Lalaloopsy24 (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Suitable biography photo

I believe it would be in the best interest of viewers to include a photograph of Rodrigo. AlienChex (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Per WP:IMAGEPOL, any identifying photograph of Rodrigo would have to have sufficient copyright license allowing so. This can come in the form of a Flickr photo, Youtube video screenshot, or Wikimedia Commons upload, but all must have licensing or permissions allowing for commercial use, from my understanding of the issue.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021

don't you think it's time to put a picture for olivia already? Lalaloopsy24 (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: No. Amaury • 17:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

Add an image from https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTi3iv4ISYed8ko_OdtCWrvj1PywCiohYoZzg&usqp=CAU for her Wikipedia page's profile picture on quick facts. Benandyy (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Add Benandyy (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As it leads to copyright violation per c:COM:FAIRUSE Run n Fly (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Picture

Hi, I think we should have a picture of Olivia by now. Her debut album is going to come out very soon, and in the last couple of months she's made quite a name for herself; therefore, her Wikipedia page should correspond with that, and have a picture to go with it. I saw a picture a couple of weeks ago, but it got taken down, so could we please upload one soon?

I agree. 2600:1700:DA60:E010:90F1:9E8D:386B:A6D9 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021 (2)

add an image of Olivia Rodrigo 2A02:587:6611:B000:C07D:12BB:DF51:A83 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

You should insert a profile picture for her because she is arguably one of the most popular arists as of right now. Lamarsimp101 (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done::Wikipedia only uses images (with very few exceptions) that are licensed for commercial use. Unfortunately, one of Rodrigo isn't currently available. See WP:IUPC.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Adding on, if the reason behind adding a picture is because she's "popular" right now, a picture should not be added. A picture is only added when there is a consensus that the picture will be relevant to the reader's understanding of the article, and the article would be lacking contextually without it. I do agree that a picture should be added, as the article does seem to be lacking (and there is a pretty good agreement that there should be a picture in this article), but unfortunately, there are no freely-licensed pictures of Rodrigo (as far as we know) yet, and it is unlikely we will be getting new freely-licensed pictures soon due to pandemic restrictions. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 03:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Signature??

Hi, I've already talked about this in a previous section, but I still don't understand why there's no picture for her. You have her signature on her page, and yet there's still no picture. I know you need to upload certain pictures that won't get Wikipedia copyrighted, but I don't know how to do that. Can someone else please do it ASAP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalaloopsy24 (talk • contribs)

Hi! Three points and a piece of advice. 1: Wikipedia is a community that you are a part of, so it's not you, it's we, but that's beside the point. 2: I have no clue why her signature is on this page, it is completely unnecessary. I feel this way about all signatures: it seems like fancruft, and it is very easy to Google. 3: I know I can't speak for everyone, but every time someone asks "where's the picture?", it annoys me, whether the question was asked in good faith or not. If you read the full talk page, you would see that seven out of the 27 sections on this page are about the picture, and five of them either include detailed explanations as to why a picture cannot be uploaded or a link to how image uploading works. Asking again isn't going to magically make a copyright-free picture appear out of thin air. So, my advice is to read all seven of those sections, read all the pages that are linked (like WP:FFU and WP:IUPC), and then reply to this discussion if you have any further questions that aren't "Where's the picture?". Here are the eight sections: #Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021, #Suitable biography photo, #Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021, #Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021, #Picture, #Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021 (2) and #Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC) (updated 22:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC))
really man? "were a community its 'we' not 'us'" cmon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9750:A140:6D67:FA40:A014:C1D8 (talk • contribs)
What? Wikipedia is a community, so using "we" or "us" is better than using "you (pl.)". Also, I never said "it's 'we', not 'us'". D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 23:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
At least the signature was obtained without copyright problems. Just need a photo in the same manner. Has she made public appearances like at a fan convention? Someone can snap a picture there and submit that to commons. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
She has done some promo events for Sour (like when she did a pop-up ice cream shop for her fans), but I'm pretty sure she was wearing a mask, so any photos of her would be no good. As for any photos pre-pandemic, I don't think there would be any events not connected to HSMTSTS or Bizaardvark. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how Wikipedia being a community is relevant here, but ok. And I didn't read through all seven sections before typing my comment, but I did understand that the reason she doesn't have one up is because of copyright issues. My question to one of you was whether there could be anything done about it. Lalaloopsy24 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't: I was just pointing it out so you know in the future, which is why I said but that's beside the point. I'm glad you read through all the sections and now better understand the issue with getting a picture of Rodrigo into the article. No, there is nothing that can be done as of now. Like Angus said, the photo needs to be obtained without copyright problems. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Image of Olivia Rodrigo

Hello,

I found an image of Olivia Rodrigo under Creative Commons license ND 2.0. I used CCSearch to locate the image which was originally posted on Flickr (June 22, 2018) by Walt Disney Television, in their collection of photos from the 2018 Radio Disney Music Awards.

I want to know if this image is suitable to put in the infobox of the article. Please note that I am new to image posting and uploading, so feel free to inform me in a nice manner if I have violated copyright laws. I had noticed previous discussion/debate of the lack of an image in the Olivia Rodrigo article, so I thought it would be kind of me to do research on the topic.

Courtesy link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/disneyabc/29085153118/in/photostream/ Rules of cc ND 2.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/

Thank you,

Εζω (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

ND in the license means no derivatives which is not an acceptable restriction. WP:Free licenses is a list of acceptable licenses. Whpq (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Why not use this image which is CC BY 2.0? https://www.flickr.com/photos/x1brett/51240528416 Yannn11 18:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I also think it is fine to use the first CC BY-ND 2.0 image as {{Non-free promotional}}. See Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/Non-free. Yannn11 19:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Yannn11: The image from the flickr link is that of her Sour album cover, and while the source of that image is different from that used in the infobox of the Sour (album) article (Rodrigo's Instagram vs. the flickr one linked here), the non-free use rationale on the image (from Instagram) dictates it to be used exclusively at that article. Aside from that, I'm not thinking an image of her that is in the context of a particular project, whether it's the Sour album or the covers of any of her singles like "drivers license" or "good 4 u" qualifies as being an appropriate image for this article's infobox. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: Good point; I agree. What do you think about using the original CC BY-ND 2.0 image with the {{Non-free promotional}} template? Yannn11 19:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

Add a picture! 2601:C9:C001:8130:C59A:A447:5AD9:7EF4 (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Nor Wikipedia or its affiliate, Wikimedia Commons, currently has an usable image of her. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

for god sake read the talk section before saying this for the millionth time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9750:A140:E45D:2058:C544:7D61 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 All done: File:Olivia Rodrigo at White House.jpg. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I found her birth

I believe I have found a more detailed, reliable source for her birth. It's a clipping from Newspapers.com. You can view it here. I'm pretty certain this is her. It's the same birthday that's already given, and it also gives her parents names and her middle name. I guess this is acceptable/is at the very least somewhat better than the self-published tweets currently being used? Coming from a newspaper (The Californian (Temecula)), it is technically a secondary source I think? Heartfox (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

DarkGlow has a good source for Temecula. I'm a little leery of using a birth announcement like this – it's dangerously close to a WP:BLPPRIMARY issue IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Heartfox and IJBall: I have sourced her birth name with this source. It's from the Italian variant of the British Sky News, so it's in Italian, but it states her birth name clearly, as well as her being born in Temecula, but as IJBall said, I've sourced that with a RS already. – DarkGlow (✉) 12:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Isabel is one of those names that gets changed in translation from Elizabeth in some languages. I know this is the case for Spanish, not sure about Italian. It would be best to have an English language source for this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Heartfox's find is perfect. The newspaper birth announcement is exactly appropriate, not a violation of BLP in any way, shape or form. The local source is far better than something in Italy that has problems loading. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2021

Rancho Springs Medical Center is in Murrieta, CA not Temecula, CA. 2603:8000:9001:41B4:BD88:D754:5783:C0FA (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thank you! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal Life?

It seems odd to me that her public vaccine outreach in partnership with POTUS is listed under Personal Life. Participating in press conferences as part of a public outreach campaign seems the opposite of personal. -- 2600:2B00:8810:9B00:9D7D:E986:1F21:1E4 (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Might need to be moved to another section when applicable and when enough information exists regarding side projects, such as politics or philanthropy for example. As of now, it should stay in "Personal life". This is something that is an extension of her role as a celebrity via singer and actress. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Word Usage Error

There is a line 'It was preceded by two more singles, "Deja Vu" and "Good 4 U", with the latter becoming her second single to reach number one in both the US and UK," in the very beginning. The word preceded is wrong here as "Deja Vu" and "Good 4 U" came after "Driver's License". The correct verbage would be followed.Morganicvegetables (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)morganicvegetables

It's more about the presentation of those last two sentences in the lede (the It at beginning of the last sentence, the one quoted here, referring to the album Sour, not "Drivers License"). Might be better to combine them into one sentence, like: Her critically acclaimed debut album, Sour, was released on May 21, 2021, and was preceded by two more singles, "Deja Vu" and "Good 4 U", with the latter becoming her second single to reach number one in both the US and UK. That's probably a better fix. MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Looks good to me. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Olivia_Rodrigo/Archive_1&oldid=1048651564"