Talk:Drivers License (song)

Swift and Lorde pictures

From what’s currently in the article, only one critic has compared this song to Swift and Lorde. This does not call for inclusion of pictures that take up more space than the comparison itself - WP:UNDUE. It’s preferable to opt for pictures of people involved in the song's creation instead.—NØ 18:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

(stylized in all lowercase)

Is it stylized in all lowercase? Where? Why is it not written in this way anywhere in the article e.g. in "Commercial Performance" section. The title should be represented as it is?

This parenthetical is very prominent in the article and feels awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.153.126 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Telling it in lead is enough. "feels awkward" is not a valid reason. The same thing has been adapted for ALL music articles. Drivers License is not special. If you're not familiar with what Wikipedia says about stylizations, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music. BawinV (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGE RELEVANCE

We do not simply decorate articles with images. MOS:IMAGE RELEVANCE states "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." While "a dozen publications have reported this" we do not need to see images of two artists to understand the concept. The prose are sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we do not need images of the two people who were being compared to understand that reviewers were comparing them to these performers' music. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I understand what you're saying, and I agree to an extent, but it's not entirely unusual in WP precedent to include relevant images of artists mentioned for comparative purposes. see Ariana Grande, Red (Taylor Swift album), or Lana Del Rey.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That's the point: they are not relevant in any way. Too many pop music articles have unrelated articles. If the images were showing the similarities in the music, lyrics or something that the reviews commented on, rather than eye candy of the people who made it, it would be appropriate. It's quite normal to remove images that are not relevant or only partially relevant to the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The reviews are all talking about how elements of the song, such as the production style, storytelling-based lyricism, her vocal delivery, the bridge breakdown etc are similar to that of Lorde and Swift, which is indeed relevant to the subject, not just partially. I don't know how that's eye candy. BawinV (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how image illustration of a topical subject is considered "unrelated". A similar phenomenon would be, for instance, let's take a public figure, Florence Pugh. Pugh has three photographs of herself on her page, even though just one would suffice for BLP to let the reader know what she looked like, as she hasn't aged over the span of a few years; but she has one for each sect of her career, which remain related to the text as they depict her in events and projects mentioned in the body of the article. If that makes sense, I feel like this is similar - it helps illustrate clarity without having the reader themselves having to click on other pages.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how Walter Görlitz's point is hard to understand. The images of Lorde and Taylor Swift are not relevant here since the comparisons are between musical elements, not looks. The images would be relevant if a critic commented that Rodrigo physically looks like them in the music video. The only media that will relevantly illustrate the comparisons here are samples of the songs in question.--NØ 05:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that's fine, but plenty of people recall artists by their distinctive appearances/looks rather than by name. It's not out of bounds or irrelevant to put a face to one for recognition purposes, and has been done on multiple other pages. Also, the above section reasons that the pictures shouldn't be included for the sake of weight, which has now been disputed. --Bettydaisies (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Displaying actual stylization in lead

From what I can tell, the title of the song is styled "drivers license" on the official YouTube video and the streaming service Spotify, though reputable sources like New York Times and Rolling Stone use "Drivers License" like the article.

I think including the official style (with sources) in the lead would be easier to see visually for readers and be faithful to the actual song; there have also been other edits and comments here with confusion about it. My initial edit got reverted, so I thought I'd post here.

Current: "Drivers License" (stylized in all lowercase) is the debut

Proposal: "Drivers License" (styled drivers license) is the debut

Thoughts? Fredlesaltique (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary and useless. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music. BawinV (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur. The page is disamguated enough to ensure no confusion to readers. It’s the exact same word stated twice, I’m sure the masses won’t need that much clarification.--Bettydaisies (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Betty and Bawin. Since when do we show and not tell? As well, if we were to go with "show", it should be "Drivers License" (stylized in all lowercase as "drivers license"). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If you guys feel strongly I'll let it pass. I couldn't find what you were referring to in the manual of style, however.

I saw the citation was removed, is there a reason for doing so? Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me? You blatantly refuse to follow guidelines laid down by Wikipedia. There are three replies to you above; read them. BawinV (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@BawinV: My apologies if phrasing came across as combative; wasn't my intent. Just proposing what I thought would be an improvement, but we all have different perspectives and input and that's totally fine.

I was unable to find what you were referring to in the MOS though, could you point me to the right section? I also wasn't sure why the citation was removed (could have been an honest mistake).

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Look at Thank U, Next, Me!, and Beyoncé (album); and then look at Homecoming: The Live Album, How I'm Feeling, and Damn. What do you observe? In case of titles with only one stylization, the type of stylization is stated in parentheses. In case of titles with multiple stylizations (such as capitalization changes, decorative characters, or superscripting), representing the actual stylization is adopted because it's easier than stating all the stylizations. This is the general norm. "Drivers License" has only one stylization, therefore it's feasible to use "stylized in all lowercase" just like in the case of every other song on Wikipedia. About your "citation", we don't need require it since the title's lowercase stylization is already noted in the Tidal source found in Credits and Personnel section of the song's article. Regards. BawinV (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@BawinV: Again, the style is fine. It's good that there is a source for the Credits and Personnel section; however, I really think an inline citation to a reliable source should be kept next to the statement, per WP:VER. Fredlesaltique (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No, that is unnecessary. It's the lead sentence. It's sourced in the body, which is enough according to WP:VER. And again, look at the music articles I gave you, do they cite sources next to the song title? No. It simply clutters the lead and is just plain silly. Read some featured articles in Songs domain to learn how Song articles written. BawinV (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph - 'Influences'

I think Lana Del Rey should be mentioned considering Taylor Swift (Esp. her music from last year) was virtually based on Lana's music, lyrics & vocal style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.159.96.59 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

IP(s) being disruptive by changing a specific name

In the section "Commentary and impact" appears the following:

The New York Times writer Joe Coscarelli wrote that the song was spurred not only by its quality, but also the gossips surrounding it, paired with the label's marketing plan, and support from celebrities like Swift and Charli D'Amelio. He noted the autobiographical song bolstered tabloids and listeners to "piece together its real-life parallels", while TikTok videos lead to social media posts, "which led to streams, which led to news articles, and back around again", generating an "unbeatable" feedback loop. Coscarelli added that, similar to Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Christina Aguilera, Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, and Selena Gomez, Rodrigo took "her experiences within the Disney machine and attempted to translate them for a broader, more adult audience".

An IP (or group of IPs) has several times replaced the name Demi Lovato with Bridgit Mendler with no explanation ... and despite this being reverted back to Lovato, I have a feeling they will continue this disruption ad nauseam. My question is simply (without my needing to register an account at The New York Times): Is Mendler mentioned at all in the context of what is stated above? MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

References

OK, I think I can answer my own question, seeing that I just had full access to the article (might be my only freely accessible one for the month at the NYT, not sure), and the answer is no. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 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: Not moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Drivers License (song) → Drivers License – "Drivers License" currently redirects here, current title is unnecessary disambiguation. Some may suggest that title should redirect to Drivers licence despite the fact this article is likely the primary topic for this search term. Please discuss below. Sean Stephens (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've also reverted the redirect at Drivers License back to the primary topic. See WP:ASTONISH. 162 etc. (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons stated by other oppose !voters. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The spelling/stylization difference is far too minor. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, a pop song recently released for the 15-25 year olds in America that many (especially us older ones) have never heard of vs a concept that practically every English speaker knows about. In a couple of years the song will probably be forgotten, like most pop songs.  Stepho  talk  22:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I also oppose, but your claims about music are laughably wrong and weren't asked for. All you're doing is making yourself seem too biased and out-of-touch for anybody to take your vote seriously. Drivers License is not an America-centric song. And no song of its caliber has ever been "forgotten in a few years". Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I've got 15-25 year olds living in my house and I listen to their music. Some is good, some is drivel - about the same proportion as when I was that age. Even the best songs go way down in popularity by next year (although the really good ones do resurface as party playlists for the 35-55 demographic). History repeats.  Stepho  talk  00:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I can't ever see the song overtaking the concept of a driving license as primary topic.--NØ 06:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as pure recentism. The physical license allowing people to drive is something that has been prevalent for many years (long before Olivia Rodrigo was even born) and is so ingrained into society that it won't fade from common knowledge anytime soon. An accidental typo (she's mentioned that this track was intended to have an apostrophe) isn't nearly enough to distinguish it from the other concept, no matter how popular the song has become. People can easily forget the apostrophe and refer to a license they own, lost, or are aiming to obtain. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. People type without apostrophes all the time; directing to the song would be confusing and misleading. It's not the primary topic. Heartfox (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I think people have confused my intentions with this suggested move, the target I was suggesting is of an alternate spelling, grammar, and capitalisation. That, and an argument could be made that it's also unnecessary disambiguation. This would certainly be the primary topic for this spelling, grammar, and capitalisation, and I'm sure page views would reflect that. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• None of that changes my stance, and I disagree with it being a primary topic by any measure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• @SNUGGUMS: That's fair. Consensus may change over time, so I'm not fussed. What I don't understand is why the redirect in question redirects here as opposed to the alternative – that makes no sense. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like somebody gave WP:DIFFCAPS as a rationale for having the page redirect to here. Make what you will of that, but it's been undone here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as I do not think the song is enough of a primary topic over the main article on driver's licenses. I agree with the above oppose comments and their rationales so I will not completely repeat that to avoid unnecessary repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Disambiguate the song gets more views (63,411) than the generic meaning (12,023)[[1]] so its probably safest to disambiguate per WP:DIFFCAPS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Se WP:RECENTISM. Whatever is new and shiny gets views. It rarely lasts.  Stepho  talk  11:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well we're discussing the capital "L", no one's suggesting Drivers license (lower case "l") be changed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose how exactly does removing (song) help fans looking for the song? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Should this discussion be closed early as per WP:SNOW? It's clear that consensus is to not move for a variety of reasons, and I don't see why we need to put this snowball through five more days of hell when it is already melting at an alarming rate. Thoughts? D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:44, 3 May 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.

RFC on whether Olivia Rodrigo is a "singer-songwriter"

Olivia Rodrigo has an RFC over whether Rodrigo should be called a singer-songwriter in the article, instead of a singer and a songwriter. 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. BawinV (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Still shot from the music video in the article

Twice now, IPs have removed this image without a valid reason for removal [2][3]. Unless there's a copyright concern/violation (none has been brought up at the image file), I see no reason at this time for its removal, but I'll leave it to consenus to determine this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"Impact and Legacy" for a one year old song? Really?

While the information in the section "Impact and Legacy" is coherent and well-sourced, almost all of it would be better placed under "Reception" rather than having its own section. It doesn't describe any impact it might have had (presumably because it's too new to have had any lasting impact), and it certainly doesn't describe any kind of legacy, which makes sense given that it's a new song. Silly barely begins to describe it. 68.60.202.174 (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Drivers License" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Drivers License and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 14#Drivers License until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 03:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)