Jump to content

Talk:Stressed Out

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeStressed Out was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 16, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stressed Out (Twenty One Pilots song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stressed Out (Twenty One Pilots song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 September 2016

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. SSTflyer 05:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, this should be sufficient dab; it actually receives more views than Stress (psychological) anyway.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a legacy with pop songs in that there was a period 2 to 3 years ago when WP:Naming conventions (music) was advocating partial disambiguation. That is the reason for reminding users of what the guideline now says. Unreal7 habitually speaks to other editors like that too, so I'm in good company. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Poor writing style

[edit]

What exactly is the point of this sentence? "The video, with over 610 million views and 3.9 million likes as of September 7, 2016,[15] brought it onto list of most liked YouTube videos, but not the list of most viewed YouTube videos." Who cares if it isn't on the list of most viewed YouTube videos? That fact is irrelevant. 2601:140:8302:E260:813B:55D3:46E8:EF1E (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not poor writing style nor is it irrelevant. The list itself is irrelevant as it's the most "liked" list, and that is rarely discussed. So either the whole thing is removed or you find a better way to say that it's a video not worth watching except by fans. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number of views/likes

[edit]

I tend to update this when the video crosses a 10 million view threshold and User: Walter Görlitz recently challenged me on this. We could agree to keep it rounded down to 100 million once it reaches 700 million if 10 million is overkill, but most similar articles have always been rounded down to the 10 million (even before I started updating these!). Or we could delete the sentence entirely - I feel it's only important for videos which make it on to the top 40 list (950 million plus views). Stressed Out won't reach this for some time, if ever.

In any case, 690 million is currently more accurate and informative than 680 million and it does not bother me to make these regular updates every week or so, so I at least feel that it should not be reverted without a discussion on whether we keep the whole sentence. What do you think (in particular User: Walter Görlitz and also others)?

Tcamfield (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's still trivial is the real point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not totally sure what you mean by trivial. The way I see it, if we are going to keep the information and keep rounding to the nearest 10 million, we should keep it updated. It may not be the most important thing in the article, but it's better to keep it updated than not to. I say get rid of the whole sentence? Tcamfield (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Likes? No one cares about likes. Everyone discusses views but the discussion of likes does not happen. It's trivia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I agree - when I next update the views I will get rid of the likes. Most similar articles do not have a sentence talking about the likes. I would warn, however, that the views generally need updating more than the likes. But this action should help a bit. Tcamfield (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Stressed Out. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 November 2017

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, default to status quo. Perennial type of RM debate, largely subjective, votes roughly split – there's not a consensus here. Jenks24 (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– I would like to revert the move request from last year. A year after it, Stress (psychological) and this article are now much closer in the amount of views on average. Plus, despite their song not being as popular, A Tribe Called Quest are known in the US and their song came out 20 years before this. Most likely, "Stressed Out" refers to someone being literally stressed out, not this song as much anymore. I think things need to go back to the way they were last year. JE98 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The A Tribe called Quest song gets fewer than 5% of the pageviews of this article. Fewer than 1 out every 150 readers click on the hatnote, indicating most readers landing on this article are exactly where they mean to be. Station1 (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, put back as it was. The non-admin close and move last year wasn't a good one. Readers shouldn't be forced to go via a 2015 song if they are looking for the TV episodes or the other three songs. This is a wikt:generic title for an entertainment product and it's a diverse world where readers have different interests. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per In ictu oculi, and any page with this stand-alone title, upper or lower cased, should probably go to "Stress" as primary and most familiar usage. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also support moving it back as it was. This is just (ironically) causing stress to the people looking for well known human condition "Stress" and forcing them to route through song related to one region of the world or dab page. Whoever is looking for the song it is reasonable they also know about the human condition with same name (save if they're not human) and can even stop by to read it and later get their way to the song article. The opposite of this is obvious, million of people who will search for "Stress Out" have no clue of this song and not even interested in it or music in its entirety and there's no reason to route them through this song –Ammarpad (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all the above reasons. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (see User:Station1's note above) and WP:NOTDICT. —  AjaxSmack  05:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question: @AjaxSmack: I have some question for you, but before let me quote from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC first since I see you referred to it:

      " 1–A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. 2 –A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."

      The questions: 1–Please how that one song from US has more usage than the universal human condition? 2, regarding enduring notability, among these two topics "stress (song)" and "stress (psychological condition)"; please which one will still retain its notability in the next 100 years? I will easily change my stance once you convince me, with facts, of course. Thanks ​ –Ammarpad (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am fully aware of the wording of PTOPIC and I absolutely agree that psychological stress is a far more important topic (i.e., greater long-term significance, enduring notability and educational value) than the song.
        However, that is not what is at issue here. The issue is whether readers searching an encyclopedia for the term "Stressed Out" (with a capital O) are primarily searching for an article on psychological stress. Neither you nor any of the other discussants here has provided any evidence of this. I will be happy to withdraw opposition if such evidence is forthcoming.
        And just to be helpful, there is a way to test your proposition which I will set up now: Create a new redirect at, say, [[Stressed Out (psychological)]] and pipe that redirect from a hatnote on the Stressed Out song page. Wait a week or so and then analyze the page count numbers of that redirect vis-à-vis those of the song page. Then it can be determined if readers who arrive at "Stressed Out" are really seeking the psychological stress article or not. Note that this test requires patience enough to get some stats. —  AjaxSmack  17:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As Amakuru said in the last RM, "Stressed Out" isn't really an encyclopedic topic; there's no evidence that readers are using the search term "Stressed Out", especially capitalized, looking for psychological stress. This is the primary topic among those that are called "Stressed Out".--Cúchullain t/c 14:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed move would be a big step backwards for readers. They simply don't type "Stressed Out" when they're looking or the psychological topic, as Station1's 1 in 150 stats for hitting the hatnote link above demonstrate. This article is in exactly the right place, and is a clear primary topic for "Stressed Out", amongst encyclopedic topics.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NOTDICT. Calidum 05:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for crying out loud. In the 90 day page view average for the only articles we have named Stressed Out, this article gets 324 out 342 views. That's 94%! And people are claiming there is no primary topic here? Astonishing. --В²C ☎ 04:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Stressed Out/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coolmarc (talk · contribs) 06:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


DarklyShadows It concerns me that you only have a 1.7% contribution percentage to this article Per Good Article nomination instructions, it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. In this case, you should have contacted User:LupEnd007 who has done 36% of the contributions to that page and is still busy contributing it. Cool Marc ✉ 20:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Coolmarc Hi Coolmarc! This is not the first time this user has done this. A while ago I greatly expanded David Bowie's song "The Man Who Sold the World", this user made 2 edits (both of which got reverted), then nominated it for GA without consulting me. They also clearly didn't read the article because it's currently not near GA material yet. You can also see they responded in the GA by acting annoyed that another user and I would turn on them for nominating it. This user has apparently retired from WP so it would be in our best interest to withdraw this nomination and maybe contact User:LupEnd007 to see if they want to nominate it. I just thought you should know this is not the first time this user has done something like this. Cheers :-) – zmbro (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Zmbro How did you know I nominated Stressed Out for GA in the first place? I didn't even tell you I was nominating and you have to come here and cause even more problems. It kind of worries me that you are stalking my work. DarklyShadows (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DarklyShadows It shows up on the GAN page. Since I've brought multiple articles to GA myself I sometimes like to check out reviews to see how they're going, especially for editors that I've interacted with before. One click leads to another and boom. I'm genuinely interested in other editors' projects and contributions. That's certainly not "stalking" and if that's your idea of it that's your problem. Over the years I've seen multiple editors nominate articles for both GA, FAC, and FLC that they barely contributed to and since you did the exact same thing to me a while ago, I thought I'd let Coolmarc know that this wasn't the first time. It wasn't cool at all to do that and it certainly wasn't cool here either.
Side note I'm sorry to see that you've decided to retire. I understand that WP can be stressful. I've had my fair share of stress caused by the site and I know it sucks when tons of work you've done is just deleted because one person doesn't like it. But it's a site that anyone can edit so obviously you're going to encounter many editors that don't agree with you. There has been dozens of arguments and fights over whether Stanley Kubrick's page should have an infobox for YEARS now. It's just what happens. If you do decide to retire, I wish you the best of luck irl. If you do decide to stay, I wish you the best of luck in your contributions. I know when you added pictures to Beatles articles under your old username they were helpful (some more than others) but in the future, do things that are considered ethical on the site (like what Coolmarc said above) and follow the guidelines for notability and I'm sure you'll have fewer problems. – zmbro (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The nominator who did not contribute to the article has retired. I reached out to article's main contributor LupEnd007 on their talk page to hear if they wanted to take over from the nominator, no response from them. Therefore I am failing this. Cool Marc ✉ 06:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned references in Stressed Out

[edit]

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 Stressed Out'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 "radio":

  • From Ride (Twenty One Pilots song): "Top 40/M Future Releases". All-Access Music Group. Archived from the original on December 27, 2012. Retrieved April 3, 2016.
  • From Blurryface: "Top 40/M Future Releases". All Access Music Group. Archived from the original on December 27, 2012. Retrieved April 3, 2016.

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⚡ 12:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stressed_Out&oldid=1216596631"