Talk:Apeshit

Question re: Revert relating to Tidal

User:Hayman30: In this case, since Apeshit was originally released on Tidal, this reference to the personnel on the song comes from a primary source. This is not a case of not using Tidal as a citation; it is the medium of delivery for the content itself and therefore I assert should not be reverted. I beg to differ with your POV on this one. I'd appreciate your feedback as the info is incorrect and there's no citation for the information provided. sheridanford (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@SheridanFord: Sorry but I'm not sure if I understand your comment at all. We just don't format the personnel section like Tidal does. Hayman30 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hayman30: Jay-Z and Beyoncé are owners of the service yes but they also identify what and who occupy specific creative roles. Given they are the composers of the song/video, the personnel info there is primary source material. The personnel listed currently in the article is not consistent with the Tidal info. Personnel are listed in accordance with their roles (i.e., first composer, second composer, etc.) indicating order of significance. Not sure where the existing info is documented from at all.

In addition, the opening paragraph suggests that Pharrell co-wrote the track. Tidal credits say otherwise. He is credited as producer with co-producer credits separately listed as Beyoncé, Stuart White, and Jay-Z (in that order). There are five composers listed and Pharrell is listed 4th in the list:

Kiari Kendrell Cephus

Beyoncé

S. Carter

Pharrell Williams

Quavious Keyate Marshall

Tidal's details, as the exclusive site of release, in conjunction with YouTube is the definitive source of information unless someone were to cite the publishing details from ASCAP and BMI. I was trying to offer the most accurate info from a primary source = TIDAL. sheridanford (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheridanFord: What is all this irrelevant talk about? You're trying follow Tidal's formatting, but that's not the way we do it in Wikipedia. We do not use the format "[Name] – [role]" (i.e. Pharrell – producer), instead we use "[Name] – [duty]" (i.e. Pharrell – production"). WP:SONGS is based on WP:ALBUMSTYLE which explicitly states this. Writing credits also do not belong to the personnel section. Hayman30 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2018

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 to Apeshit as proposed. Consensus is that being recent does not preclude a topic from being the primary topic; if the criteria is met, it's the primary topic. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 23:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Apeshit (song) → Apeshit – Currently, apeshit redirects to anger, whose article doesn't mention the vulgar term as slang. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's probably better for the song to be the primary topic, since the primary use of "apeshhh" is not encyclopedic to begin with. See also the 2005 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ape Shit. Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ASTONISH: This very-recent song is obviously not a proper primary topic for "Apeshit". How about creating a dab page? Under some circumstances (invoking WP:IAR if necessary), I think it is acceptable to link to an article that doesn't use an exact term, in cases where we know that the term applies well and it would be artificial to insert it just so that it can be an excuse for a redirect target or dab entry. I also hope we don't need to put a hatnote on the Anger article saying "Apeshit redirects here; for the song, see Apeshit (song)." We shouldn't let our general conventions force us into doing something that's clearly silly. That would be worse than just doing what is suggested above. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The term isn't even mentioned at the target article. Hayman30 (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTDICT. Nobody who is interested in "anger" the psychological state is going to type in this term. SnowFire (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom, (possibly with a hatnote to Wiktionary?). I hadn't heard of the song but the argument is convincing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Suppport move to "Apeshit", as the song would be a better primary topic than "Anger". Furthermore, a hatnote can be added to the top of the new "Apeshit" article if needed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. No other article currently on WP could reasonably use the title. And I agree putting a silly hatnote on Anger pointing here would be a bad idea. Station1 (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Wiki Education assignment: HipHop Music Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 February 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Golfwang14 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by WLP3222 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)