Jump to content

Talk:Willow (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWillow (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 2, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 13, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the music video for Taylor Swift's single "Willow" avoids showing some dancers' faces because they were wearing masks as a COVID-19 precaution?

Redirect target

[edit]

Saiff Naqiuddin, this redirects to a disambiguation page due to existence of several songs of this name. Kindly do not target it to solely the Swift page as it causes accessibility issues.--NØ 14:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kncny11: Hi! Thank you for your feedback. I have read all the points you listed and fixed all of them. BawinV (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Amkgp (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Saiff Naqiuddin (talk), BawinV (talk), Ashleyyoursmile (talk), Doggy54321 (talk), and BillieLiz (talk). Nominated by Shuipzv3 (talk) at 12:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - ?
  • Other problems: No - This is definitely not the most interesting fact about the music video. I've suggested a couple below, all from the same Rolling Stone source.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Great to see the speed of the creation/expansion and the number of editors collaborating on this! Pick a hook from below or counter-suggest and this'll be good to go. — Bilorv (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT1: ... that the music video for Taylor Swift's single "Willow" avoids showing some dancers' faces because they were wearing masks as a COVID-19 precaution?
  • ALT2: ... that the music video for Taylor Swift's single "Willow" only used 10 dancers due to COVID-19 restrictions, but more were added with visual effects? (fact not currently mentioned in article)
  • ALT3: ... that the music video for Taylor Swift's single "Willow" featured orbs rather than bonfires due to the 2020 California wildfires?

@Shuipzv3: Would you pick one of the alternative hooks? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanif Al Husaini: I had considered 1 and 2 but decided not to because I was trying to avoid mentioning a negative event like the pandemic. Maybe it's just my bias because the pandemic certainly has resulted in a lot of negative impacts for me. I didn't consider 3 but I'm also iffy about it for the same negative event reason. However, I would go for 1. Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Shuipzv3 has picked a hook, would you approve this? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, ALT1 approved, thanks to all for their work on this. Sorry to hear about your personal circumstances, Shuipzv3. — Bilorv (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I always forget this—we need an uninvolved reviewer to verify this hook because I suggested it. Apologies for the confusion. We just need someone to check that ALT1 is accurate, mentioned in the article and cited inline. — Bilorv (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 looks good to me. Corachow (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright , what's going on here?

[edit]

@Doggy54321: and @108.54.79.86:, put down your cloaks and your daggers and talk it out. Please tell me what is going on and how we got here. TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 15:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCartoonEditor: Yes, come through, "Daylight" reference! Anyways, I have no idea what’s happening. The IP is biased against Swift ("the song was destined to flop, anyways"), and they seem to be edit warring as well as potential personal attacks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I’m confused. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 16:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I'm like "what just happened here? 😳". Anyways, it looks like this IP editor has some problem with Swift. I mean... "The song was destined to flop no matter what"? Seriously? I rest my case. BawinV (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I alreay filed a complaint against Doggy54321 because he is blaming the song's failure on Christmas songs, when Billboard themselves stated that Christmas songs had just "some impact" on the song's massive drop, but not completely.

Lmao. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]
Moved to User talk:Doggy54321 § Doggy's conduct (February 4)
 – Not an appropriate place to have a discussion about my conduct as an editor.

D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/chart-beat/9504998/mariah-carey-christmas-tops-hot-100-fifth-week this article

My wig has flown from the top of my noggin and is now landing on the floor because I am so mind blown as to what is happening and why I’m getting blamed for this. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with getting unbanned after this! - wow, you really don't know what bans are, right? As well, I am not a vandal, please assume good faith. Not to be all cocky, but no admin would ban me for what happened on this page history. I also doubt they would block me for warning you, restoring a couple edits and leaving. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have some leniency towards you, as I don't believe you are a sock, but I have no idea what you mean by vandalised [sic] past 4th warning. Doggy is a respected member of the community who I personally look up to, with many awards. I wouldn't believe my eyes if there was formal proof of them vandalizing, except if they were hacked. On the other hand, I don't know who you are, but you're flooding my watchlist just like Christmas songs flooding the Billboard Hot 100 because they're played more than a 1 and a half week old single. (no offense to Swift, "Willow" is wonderful and one of my favorites from "Evermore".) TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 19:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCartoonEditor: Thanks so much! I’m glad that you look up to me but I don’t have awards lol. Barnstars, yes. But not awards. But thanks anyways! As well, "Willow" is wonderful and one of my favorites from "Evermore" - I felt that as this is me as well. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Once again, read WP:BAN. Even if I attacked you and vandalized the article I would not get banned. As well, I go by he/him/his pronouns, just to clarify. As well, BawinV also called you a sockpuppet, and you’re not reporting him. Bias, anyone? Not saying that you should report them, though. As well, you’re saying that I’m calling a spade a spade, yet you called me a vandal multiple times and have used {{vandal}} twice. As well, if I have offended you, I advise you to grow thick skin, because I have not said anything to offend anyone. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCartoonEditor: let's get this clear buddy, you are saying that @Doggy54321: wouldn't insult me unless he was hacked? If that's true, then the only reasonable explanation for him insulting me is that he's being hacked. Therefore, I am asking to get his account closed temporarily until we can confirm that he is not being hacked and that in fact insulted. If he in fact insulted me, then he must be blocked and there are no exceptions just because he's your friends since that would be unprofessional. Hope you do what's right, fair and professional.

I did not say Doggy wouldn't insult [you] unless he was hacked, I said that the only reason he would vandalize would if he was hacked. Doggy does not appear to be hacked, in fact, his page and edits look normal. He's not insulting you. He's advising you to be a better wikipedia editor and stop edit warring. We need to come to a consensus on what the article should say, which I was trying to do earlier. As I said earlier, you need to put down your cloaks and your daggers and talk with Doggy in a professionall way, instead of calling a wellrespected, long-serving editor with many Barnstars (called them awards by accident earlier) a vandal who is trying to cause trouble. For more of my opinion, please see Doggy's talk. I once again rest my case. TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 19:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agreed with the changes you had made to the article before Doggy change it to his own personal preference. @Doggy54321: is not fit to be a Wikipedia editor as his personal gains are more important to him than giving the right information to the public. One last thing, just because Doggy has been an editor for more time doesn't mean he is untouchable or can't do harm to Wikipedia. We should hold everyone accountable to their mistakes no matter their "position". We have seen many artists such as Marilyn Mason lately that have been accused of committing crimes and not even their position has made them untouchable. We have to ban @Doggy54321:.

Oh no I’ve been baselessly accused of hacking 😲😲😲 time to register an email and maybe a committed identity so I don’t get blocked...oh wait. There wasn’t a stitch of evidence given. Lol never mind, carry on. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you of anything Doggy, @TheCartoonEditor: was the one that made the assumption and the only thing I said about that was that "if that was the case" you still needed to get banned.
I never assumed that Doggy was hacked. I'm being misinterpreted so many times here. I said that Doggy would only vandalize if he was hacked. And although Marylin Manson is a horrible person who did horrible things, Doggy is a great person who tried to improve the article's readability! You still have no proof that Doggy was hacked, or if he's vandalized Wikipedia in the past, which I asked you to find. I am flabbergasted at this point. TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 19:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LMFAO I think I’ve died of laughter. When someone compares me to a potential abuser who doesn’t know how to do makeup, I laugh out loud. That’s honestly all I can say without getting mad. Oh well. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCartoonEditor: I got some evidence, how do I link it so you can see it? Note that the evidence was already erased but I guess we can go back to when D🐶ggy54321 made the edit.

108.54.76.86, I asked you to find links of Doggy's "disruptive edits" on other pages than "Willow". If you cite examples such as these, I will proceed with looking into the situation. Also, which editor are you using? Visual, or source? TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 20:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I look at other edits he's done on other pages? @TheCartoonEditor:?

Special:Contributions/Doggy54321. Have fun! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCartoonEditor: user @Doggy54321: has been deleting information about My Oh My by Camila Cabello. Doggy has been stating that it's an stand alone single, but it's clearly a single from the album Romance. Is this enough evidence that he's a vandal? And yes, he has been warned copious times about not messing up the page but has kept on removing the facts.

First of all, you need to clarify your understanding of vandal. Second, that’s mad petty. A mistake that I made because I understood something wrong that has turned into a discussion to improve Wikipedia' is not vandalism. Try again D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doggy54321 From what I've seen in the revision history you removed the factual information 5 times, even after being told that multiple trustworthy sources claimed My Oh My as a single from Romance. You didn't understand that after being told 5 times that same thing over and over again? If not, that's another reason to get you banned from Wikipedia since you clearly can't understand something basic.
I’ll provide a detailed explanation of what happened:
The only time I see a bit of behaviour I should change is yesterday when I made this edit. I should have started a discussion with the user instead, and not reverted, since they justified their edit. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just proved you wrong above. As well, I have not been formally warned using a user-warning (uw) template since November 2020, and that was by a vandal anyways. If you look at my talk page, there are no messages regarding the situation, either. These are clearly personal attacks to shove his beliefs down people's throats lol, do you have proof? Vandalised past 4th warning - you haven’t warned me once, sweetie. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I warned you probably more than 10 times about Willow, and they warned you 5 times about My Oh My. Anywhoo, you're getting your butt kicked out of Wikipedia for posting false information just for your personal gain LMFAOOOOOOOOOO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.79.86 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been moved to User talk:Doggy54321#Doggy's conduct (February 4). Please do not contribute here anymore, instead contribute there. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the 90's trend remix in the "Release history" section

[edit]

@Robin9528 and Emeraldkik: Hi! Just so you both know, the 90's trend remix of "Willow" was never officially independently released. This means that it should not be included in the "Release history" section, because that section is only for independent releases. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 13:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 19:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'll be reviewing this article as part of the July 2021 good article nominations backlog drive! Any section that I've marked with a  Working tag means that I haven't finished leaving comments there, but you're free to begin making changes as soon as you see them! Kncny11 (shoot) 19:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

[edit]
  • "percussions" → "percussion"
  • In the lede, you mention that it topped Apple Music and Spotify charts, but this is never mentioned in the body

Background and release

[edit]
  • I don't love the placement of the block quote where it is. I think it would better be worked into the composition section
  • WL the first instances of Folklore and Evermore in the body (I see Folklore is linked later, but it's mentioned in the first sentence)
  • Similarly, mention earlier that Dessner was the producer for Folklore, so we understand his connection to the project
  • Comma after "A video for the "Lonely Witch" version" and after "a video for the "Dancing Witch" version"
  • Pipe "electronic" to electronic music

Composition

[edit]
  • Source for the "themes of hope using several metaphors" part
  • Can you elaborate on how the lyrics reference those earlier songs?

Critical reception

[edit]
  • "in a The New York Times" reads awkwardly with the double article, it can be changed to "in a review of Evermore for The New York Times"
  • I think there's a missing word in "one of the album's most flourishing music"

Commercial performance

[edit]
  • comma after "third number-one debut on the Hot 100"
  • comma after "number 38 on the Hot 100"
  • Accompanied by Evermore tracks "Champagne Problems" and "No Body, No Crime" at numbers 15 and 19 respectively, "Willow" constitutes Swift's 21 top-20 entries in the country. I'm not sure I follow this sentence

Music video

[edit]
  • examples of "familiar scenes from Swift's past"?
  • comma after ""Before And After" video"
  • "picking up where it left off" → "picking up where the former left off"
  • I would prefer if, instead of having three citations at the end of each paragraph, individual sentences were sourced throughout the "synopsis and analysis" subhead so that each statement can be linked to a source backing it up

Awards and nominations

[edit]

Live performance

[edit]

Bottom matter

[edit]
  • Include links to the instruments and the production aspects. Let me know if you need any help with specific instrument links (for example, "percussion" should be linked to Percussion instrument)
  • Cite Unseen and Headbomb are telling me that the Malaysia charts are an unreliable source, but I'm not sure I believe them

References

[edit]
  • I see you already added "|url-access=limited" for the Rolling Stone articles. In my experience (I use a paywall bypass and can't confirm on my end, shh), Rolling Stone would actually fall under "subscription" rather than "limited", whereas "limited" would apply to the NYT and WaPo sources
  • In addition to the Malaysia chart mentioned earlier, two sources are marked as unreliable, but one is an album review and the other is an official music video that just happens to be taken from YT, so those are both fine in context

General comments

[edit]
  • It looks like some of the edit warring at the start of the month has smoothed itself over
  • The pictures qualify for fair use. Please fill out the non-free use rationale for the music video screenshot in its entirety.
  • Earwig score comes back low at 23.1%, however looking closely at some of the top matches, there's some close paraphrasing happening in the "Music video" section that will need to be reworded

Good start. Overall, I would say that the biggest items that need to be addressed are expansion of several points I elaborated on above, as well as the close paraphrasing in the Music video section. Since most of this is prose expansion, ping me when you've addressed the above points and I'll do another prose review. Putting formally on hold for now, and let me know if you have any questions! Kncny11 (shoot) 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kncny11: Hi! Thank you for your feedback. I read all the points you listed and fixed them all. BawinV (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BawinV Doggy54321 Thanks for the quick work! Two more very quick points:
  • For [52], please change from all-caps to title case, per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • Link "masterer" in the credits to Mastering (audio), just like in the background head

Once those are addressed, I'll be happy to pass the article! Kncny11 (shoot) 20:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kncny11: Fixed them both as well. Thank you for doing this; this is my first GA nomination. BawinV (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you so much! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BawinV Doggy54321 Awesome! Great job on the first GA, then! Kncny11 (shoot) 21:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for reviewing it! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Willow_(song)&oldid=1197238010"