Talk:Savage (Megan Thee Stallion song)

Orphaned references in Savage (song)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Savage (song)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nzcert":

• From Halo (Beyoncé song): "Latest Gold / Platinum Singles". RadioScope. Archived from the original on July 24, 2011. Retrieved December 9, 2010.
• From If I Were a Boy: "New Zealand Latest Gold / Platinum Singles". RadioScope. Archived from the original on July 24, 2011. Retrieved December 17, 2011.
• From Sweet Dreams (Beyoncé song): "Latest Gold / Platinum Singles". Radioscope. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. Archived from the original on July 24, 2011. Retrieved February 19, 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Continuous removal of sourced material

@Cornerstonepicker: Thought would be best to start a discussion here. If one intends to repeatedly remove well-sourced and relevant material from an article, they should bring a reason why and explain it in the edit summary or discuss it on the talk page first. For the two bits that you did comment on, you claimed that "BB doesn't mention 90s as a record" but the source states "Looking at both group and solo chart appearances, Beyoncé is the only act other than Carey to have ranked at No. 1 on the Hot 100 in four separate decades", and you claimed that ""four bw" as a record" isn't mentioned, but the source states that "the single still made chart history, marking the first time four black women occupied the charts top two spots since its 1958 inception". Please remember that articles should be written without editorial bias, and so if you especially like X rapper for example, you should not be making disruptive edits on an article about Y rapper to prevent people reading praise about them. If you want to raise questions about specific material, please do so here. Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

RfC regarding removal of sourced material

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus against these removals. Repeatedly removing well sourced information may be considered disruptive editing. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Should various material in this article be removed? Does the material violate rules of verifiability, amongst others? (Has been continual over a long period, with one large removal from this week here) Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose all removals and support re-addition - See discussion below. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all removals and support re-addition - With the possible exception of the first item, all of these appear quite open and shut cases - there are sources, these seem like good information that should be in the article, so why remove them? Seems more like disruptive editing than an honest disagreement, although I'd be interested to hear their justifications.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Cornerstonepicker has repeatedly removed well-sourced material from this article due to verifiability and other issues, most recently yesterday [1]. I dispute this and have tried discussing this issue with them on several occasions [2][3][4][5] but they typically don't respond, so thought would be best to get others' opinions, and third opinion isn't an option because they never engaged in the discussion on the talk page. Apologies this is so lengthy, but they made many claims so I'll try go through their actions and respond to each. Thank you!

1. They removed "with praise for Beyoncé and Megan's chemistry and various delivery styles, as well as for fully transforming the song with new verses" in the lead claiming it violates WP:SYNTH, but MOS:AWW states: "[Unsupported attributions] may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." Further MOS:FILM states that the critical reception of a piece of work should be mentioned in the lead, as long as the material "reflect[s] detail that is widely supported in published reviews", which is certainly the case here.
2. They removed "Beyoncé's eleventh (seventh solo) number-one single" for no stated reason
3. They removed "As of late July 2020, the song had sold over 3 million units in the US." for not being verifiable, despite there being three sources for it in the article.
4. They removed "Beyoncé became the second act in history after Mariah Carey to top the Hot 100 in four decades (1990s, 2000s, 2010s, 2020s) including group chart appearances" this time for no stated reason, but previously they said "BB doesn't mention 90s as a record", even though the Billboard source says "Looking at both group and solo chart appearances, Beyoncé is the only act other than Carey to have ranked at No. 1 on the Hot 100 in four separate decades."
5. They removed "According to Vibe, the track had reportedly raised $500,000 for Bread of Life Houston's COVID-19 relief efforts as of May 2020" despite Vibe being a reliable source.
6. They removed "and the song could become the first all-female collaboration to win" because of WP:CRYSTALBALL, despite the policy saying "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.", which this is, as another Billboard article is cited.
7. They removed "With the song's nomination for Best Rap Song, the remix of "Savage" marked the first time an all-female collaboration has been nominated in this category." because "Rap Song is a writers category, not performers, therefore the record is for writers", which I don't really understand because, as the source says, both artists were nominated for the song, because they were writers on it. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
8. They have continued to remove material [6], including "as the lead single from Megan's debut album Good News", despite the source saying "The remix was the lead single from Megan’s debut album Good News" [7] Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Brianyoumans: Thank you for your contribution (and congrats on it being your 17,000th edit!). If you want to possibly discuss the first point, feel free to do so here. It doesn't seem like the other editor will be joining unfortunately.

Also tagging other contributors to this article to gain more opinions AshMusique StatsFreak Timeheist Pjesnik21. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bgkc4444, thank you for tagging me and for taking the time to lay out and explain all the content that was removed. I support its inclusion and see no reason why it should be removed. I agree concerning the lead, it is perfectly apt to have a summary of the song's critical reception in the lead; not to hop on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but many articles do so and I find that summary to be a good encapsulation of the song's reception. I don't see a reason why all this content was challenged in the first place, and find it quite disruptive. I hope this makes things clear(er) to Cornerstonepicker and hopefully they can engage here if they think we made any mistakes. AshMusique (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@AshMusique: Thank you for your response. I definitely agree. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here because it is the norm for song articles to summarize the critical reception in the lead (which Cornerstonepicker has done themselves), and Wikipedia's guidelines explicitly say that summarizing sections without attributions in the lead or topic sentence is perfectly acceptable. Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: I've asked many times that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change that the consensus of editors has decided. Please do not revert without discussing. Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Savage ( Thee Stallion song)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Savage ( Thee Stallion song). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Savage ( Thee Stallion song) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Savage (song) → Savage (Megan Thee Stallion song) – Per WP:SONGDAB. This article was moved to Savage (song) last year, but a new article at Savage (Aespa song) has been created, so this is no longer unambiguous. 162 etc. (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support previous RM rationalization no longer applies and the Aespa song gets 3,283 views compared with 4,881[[8]] for this one, no case for a PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Tassedethe (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Akeasha Boodie erroneous songwriting credit

There was a prank edit on July 20, 2020 edit, in the songwriter credits listing "Akeasha Boodie"... ... unfortunately this name was published in the songwriting credits on certain blogs and forums after including Static Media's The List and IMDB

References