Talk:Meghan Trainor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

deja debut

how is a fall 2014 album in any way a "debut album" if she had one in 2011?! 209.172.25.144 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of 26 Sep 2014 revert

Hello Meghan Trainor fans. This edit introduced a "Cite error" message (see bottom of References section in the resulting revision, here). The error is coming from the {{singlechart}} template. There are no other uses of that template in this article.

The error added the article to an error tracking category.

I don't maintain discography articles, so I don't know how to fix the problem other than to remove the {{singlechart}}. My only interest is eliminating the error message and removing the article from the tracking category. Perhaps someone else would care to implement the editor's improvement in a way that does not create an error.

It would be good practice to always check the References section for errors after an edit involving a discography table. If your edit created one or more errors, it would be good practice to (1) figure out how to correct the error(s) immediately, or (2) revert your edit.

Thank you. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Hello. I've added the proper reference for the Austrian column. I don't think {{singlechart}} templates are meant to be used in these situations. Thanks for noticing this problem! — Usfun8991 09:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Usfun8991, now I can sleep tonight. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

Fix the chart that is listing Meghan's awards - thanks. Mbriancarlo (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

Trainor and family moved to Orleans from Nantucket not Hyannis, check out The Cape Cod Times, a local newspaper from Cape Cod Ma.108.1.155.143 (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

108.1.155.143 (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 06:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template

Why was the infobox template changed from Musical Artist to person? The only reason I'd see to do that is because she has a profession other than music, like acting. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Photo

Are there any photos of her we can use? User:JoyUnity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyunity (talk • contribs) 23:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at a Google search, I'm going to say no. (None of the images on the first page, when filtering for free images, were of Trainor.) Our best bet is for an editor to see her live, take a pic, and upload it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

 Added

Unsourced Genres and instruments

I've seen a lot of artist's articles getting challenged for genre and instruments. Can someone find sources? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Joseph Prasad: See the musical style section of the article, all the genres and instruments are reliably sourced. - Lips ^{are movin} 12:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter

This has also been discussed on numerous articles. I'm not familiar with Trainor, but does she accompany herself on instruments while performing, such as on an acoustic guitar or a piano? Cause that is the Wikipedia definition of singer-songwriter. Just look at the article, and see if she still applies. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Joseph Prasad:

• There are 10+ reliable sources in the article alone that deem her a singer-songwriter.
• She performs regularly with her ukelele, see her covers of "Shake It Off", "Mistletoe", "Stay with Me" and her own songs "All About That Bass" and "Title".
• She composes all her material. Though recently co-writing with Kevin Kadish, all her previous albums were self-produced and self-written alone, two of which were pure acoustic albums. Jason Mraz whose work is also co-written by Kadish is also considered a singer-songwriter.

- Lips ^{are movin} 22:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin: OK, thank you. This has just been in many article discussions, saying for example, Taylor Swift, Drake Bell, and plenty of other artists being said they aren't singer-songwriters even though they perform in that fashion. Just trying to help the article best I can, is all. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin: You don't need to put that many links for singer-songwriter. That is OVERKILL.

I know what is WP:OVERKILL but the sole purpose of all those sources is to prevent the many editors that come and say "xyz is not a singer-songwriter. Trainor being a singer-songwriter and Title acting as her debut album are facts that can easily result in future edit wars and conflicts, so it is better that both are substantially sourced to prevent this happening in future. - Lips ^{are movin} 09:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin: If you see the overkill article, there's a way to bunch up all the sources: If there is a good reason to keep multiple citations, for example, to avoid perennial edit warring or because the sources offer a range of beneficial information, clutter may be avoided by merging the citations into a single footnote. This can be done by putting, inside the reference, bullet points before each source, as in this example, which produces all of the sources under a single footnote number. Within a simple text citation, semicolons can be used to separate multiple sources.

@Joseph Prasad: The overkill article does not describe how to incorporate several refnames into one citation, it only tells you how to combine several refs into one. Anyway I have fixed it to the best of my ability. You could have at least fixed the overkill yourself instead of removing all the sources and disrupting the article's reference formatting.- Lips ^{are movin} 13:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Jewelry boutique owned by Meghan Trainor's parents

The jewelry boutique owned by Meghan Trainor's parents is called "Jewel of the Isle", not "Isle of Jewel" (see the source given for that sentence). 2003:74:CE06:F01:ECD4:C458:15A5:B6DA (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Lips ^{are movin} 12:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

RIAA Certifications Update

• All Abput That Bass is now 6x Platinum
• Lips Are Movin is Platinum
• Dear future Husband is Gold

Source: http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?content_selector=gold-platinum-searchable-database

Fan Culture/Gossip

The term ‘Megatronz’ was created by Meghan Trainor herself who discussed her fans and this term with Melissa Nathoo, interviewer and associate of ode (on demand entertainment), a YouTube Channel that interviews famous celebrities Trainor claims that she loves the term ‘Megatronz’ and that she spells it with a ‘z’ instead of an ‘s’ so she does not need to pay them or get sued by Transformers .

In her hit song “All About That Bass”, she is addressing society's perceptions and views on body image. Trainor is sending out a message in this particular song telling young women and girls to “love your body no matter what,” and to “be confident about yourself because every inch of you is perfect” . Even though this song is addressing the issue of body image, some gossip began to spread accusing Trainor of being anti-feminist . They claimed that women who have “smaller figures are at petty odds to the body positiveness the song embraces” and that Trainor is “peddling a muddled brand of self-acceptance” .

Dblair18 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 01:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter

Still an issue. She does not (no matter how many say she does) meet the criteria nor does she fit the definition for a singer-songwriter. Most importantly, reliable sources do not support "Singer-songwriter". Singer/songwriter can be found online, however, this is not the same as singer-songwriter (case in point, singer/songwriter/producer is also found online). Singer, songwriter along with singer and songwriter is also found in reliable sources.

I intend to fight the current nomenclature in the article - and, frankly, there was no previous consensus (as is now being claimed). Those involved with the discussion previous should be honest and recall correctly that the mediation discussion in January failed to reach a consensus. If I'm incorrect in how that discussion ended up, feel free to correct me with diffs showing otherwise. Regardless, Trainor does not fit the description (reliable sources don't support it, either) and as long as she is the kind of singer and co-songwriter she is now, never will. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6] are all reliable sources and support simply "singer-songwriter". Isnt the above user "lyin-lyin-lyin"? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 16:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is such a non-issue. What is the problem with using "singer and songwriter"? It is still accurate, doesn't contradict anything in the sources MF has provided, and is not controversial like "singer-songwriter" is. Just my two cents. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Trainor IS a singer-songwriter and NOTHING will be as accurate as s-s to describe Trainor. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that she is a singer-songwriter.  — ₳aron 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with All About That Bass. This is not that big of a deal. Numerous references support using "singer-songwriter" Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• This was discussed a few months ago and consenus was clear that we can call her a singer-songwriter because many sources do. Nothing has changed since then. Just because you don't like her music (or the fans of her music) doesn't mean we can't call her a singer-songwriter. Calidum T|C 17:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

With this, I am thereby deeming the article stable and am proceeding with the Good Article nomination. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Spin article is the only relevant source here, as it is a music source. I remember past dispute (and edit warring) about this here. I understand your grievance WV; the term has become diluted, applied to virtually any recording artist with co-writing credits. The fact of the matter is, as has been said before in prior discussion, a reliable source calls her a singer-songwriter (mind you, without context), so she can be referenced as such, and there's no consensus against the use of the hyphen. Lapadite (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

They're all relevant here, which only proves the point that she is a singer-songwriter. Calidum T|C 22:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-fact based and shoddy "journalism" that refers to her incorrectly as a singer-songwriter only proves one thing: those writing the piece know nothing about music and what it means (and has always meant) to be a singer-songwriter. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Non-fact based and shoddy "journalism"" > Your opinion/own original research. -- 104.161.12.144 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:OR. If you feel some of the world's most respected newspapers are in error, contact them. Their word carries far greater weight than anything you say. Calidum T|C 03:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

50+ years a professional musician with a degree in music? Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Should I start making claims out of thin air too now? Regardless, it's still an opinion contrary to reliable sources. Truthiness isn't acceptable here. Calidum T|C 14:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WV, your behavior to deny the consensus constantly doesn't at all make the article unstable. It just demonstrates a lack of maturity in yourself. If you continue enforcing your opinion (WP:OWN) and continue targeting the page whenever it is GA-nominated (WP:REVENGE and WP:BAIT). It could lead to action against yourself. Don't make unreasonable requests. All I know is that the so-called "shoddy" journalism is by reliable sources (WP:RS) who explicitly state "singer-songwriter". They are better sources than your opinion (We wont use your birth certificate as a source, would we?) All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 04:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't have to stop wanting accurate content in articles. You seem to think this has something to do with the article being GA nominated. It doesn't. It's about accuracy. And just for the record, for every reliable source that wrongly refers to her as a singer-songwriter, there are at least two that correctly refer to her as a singer and songwriter.

In regard to the argument that because reliable sources state it, therefore, the content MUST reflect it: If a reliable source refers to something scientific or medical or artistic some other specialized field of interest by incorrect nomenclature, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? For example: If a reliable source refers to someone as having melanoma when they really have carcinoma, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to a paleontological period as Cenozoic when it was really Jurassic, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to an artistic period as Renaissance when it is really Neoclassicism, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to the musical artistic classification in relation to a musical artist as a singer-songwriter when they are really a singer and a songwriter, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source?

The answer for all of these is: no. We use encyclopedic editorial reasoning along with common sense because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias contain facts, not incorrect content that is backed up by shoddy journalism. There is plenty of evidence via other reliable sources that Meghan Trainor is a singer and a songwriter. Those sources are correct. The sources that say she is a singer-songwriter are wrong. Bottom line. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"or every reliable source that wrongly refers to her as a singer-songwriter, there are at least two that correctly refer to her as a singer and songwriter"; WV, whether that is the case - and you'd need to link those sources - there still isn't consensus to use "singer and songwriter". You can start a RfC if you want wider input. Lapadite (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It also presumes the terms are mutually exclusive. Calidum T|C 14:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am now following WP:DFTT here and suggest everyone else do the same. Not a single guideline or source cited by the above user. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 05:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Touche' All About That Bass! I agree with you there. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not just hold an RFC? Then you can have a straight-up consensus without sniping back and forth at each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan and Winkelvi: (whoever of the two restarts the RfC), re: my comment on the closed RfC, I also suggest you pose a more accurate question, like Should Trainor be categorized as a "singer and songwriter" or "singer-songwriter"? Lapadite (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is Trainor a singer, or a singer-songwriter?

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.

---

Should Trainor be categorized as a singer or singer-songwriter? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 19:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• CommentThere's nothing "precise" in calling someone something they are not. Trainor is not a singer-songwriter, but a singer and a songwriter (a co-songwriter, if you want precision). Look at the definition of singer-songwriter (one example is right here in one of our articles singer-songwriter). She simply doesn't fit the bill, no matter how many reliable sources may call her such. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Singer-songwriter - Even if we exclude the hundreds of sources that call her a singer-songwriter, don't forget that we have included her first three albums in her discography as well. Taylor Swift released four albums as a singer-songwriter. However, 1989 became her not-a-singer-songwriter album. Yet she will always be listed as one. Trainor, who released three self-written acoustic albums, and followed it up wit a breakthrough pop smash album (on which she co-wrote all the songs by the way). Right off the bat, based on the three self-produced, self-written, self-recorded acoustic albums, I will give her "that Title Title"(Excuse the pun). Whatever, she simply is a singer-songwriter, it is time we deal with it. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 19:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Links to these albums where she allegedly, singularly wrote every song? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

here, I hope you know the meaning of home-produced. Also, I don't need to provide you links for this type of stuff. Get her albums yourself, or search yourself. Also, I don't like people weighing in on my comments so I wont be replying any further. Write your own and stay away from mine. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 20:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You made the claim, you opened the RfC, therefore, the onus is on you to prove your case. You said she produced and totally wrote three albums. Where is the proof that she wrote every song on those three albums, as you are claiming she did? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like she received a writing credit on every single song on her most recent album? Are you disputing the accuracy of that or something? Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

She CO-wrote, she wasn't the only writer/composer. That alone disqualifies her as a singer-songwriter. Look at the definition. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

In the strictest sense, sure, she's no Bob Dylan, but in a more modern sense, it seems the prospect of a being a "singer-songwriter" and only co-writing are not mutually exclusive. Just a little bit of searching showed some examples of this - like Alanis Morisette or Taylor Swift - classified as singer-songwriters despite co-writing entire albums. Your argument, to me, sounds a little too like the genre warring type stuff where people say Green Day isn't real punk rock, The Clash is! Or Metalica is real heavy metal, not Linkin Park, etc etc. A fine arguments for messageboards or friends, not not Wikipedia, where we go according to what reliable sources say. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

She doesn't even fit the definition loosely. She co-writes her music, is a pop singer cranking out hits. Singer-songwriter is an art form, not just a "genre". Nevertheless, the definition hasn't changed or evolved to a more modern form. It is what it is, and Train or doesn't fit into the description at this time no matter who wrongly ascribes the label to her. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Reword/restart RFC - As an outside viewer, this RFC needs to be closed and restarted. The instructions at "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue." By putting "the more precise" in the RFC question, you've made it biased towards your view that singer-songwriter should be used. This is definitely not a neutral question/RFC. I have no comment/care about the content of the debate, only about the procedure. only (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Only, I was thinking the same thing. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reworded the controversial statement. Although, by more precise I meant more detailed, whatever.All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 20:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I concur that the RFC should be closed and restarted. It appears from the history that the wording of the RFC was disputed as non-neutral and was changed after it was posted. Changing the wording of the RFC is even more disruptive than a non-neutral wording in the first place, because changing the wording of the RFC: first, means that some editors are not responding to the same question as others; second, can cause weird behavior with respect to the bot that manages the RFCs. The RFC should be closed by deleting the bot tag, and then a new RFC should be posted with neutral wording. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree; best to restart the RfC, with a neutral statement or question. You should state your view after the RfC template + statement edit. I suggest you also add the "media" topic to the template. Lapadite (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2015 (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.

Sigh, why restart it? No one gave any !votes during the non-neutral wording timeframe. (Except for the main person who opposed him, who was obviously not affected.) You guys must love your beaurocracy and wasted time I guess. Sergecross73 msg me 23:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have re-started below, using the procedure described at WP:RFC. Using this method ensures that some uninvolved editors will show up to assess the situation and comment. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was about to do the very same, but you beat me to it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Length

This article is far too long. Too much emphasis on trivial details and way too many quotes. WP:SIZE#Readability issues says that "the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized." Trainor has not even been notable for a year; her article is bound to expand to include new information with time. The fact that we have 54+ bytes of content about her already is ridiculous. Can this please be trimmed? –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As Trainor continues her journey, and more and more information needs to be included, the article will be trimmed accordingly. The article is fine at 54KB. Nothing is "ridiculous" about it (hello! dealing with a 58 countries number 1 hit). Please don't make such stupid requests. The content is valuable, and only so is still included. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 19:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the request stupid. It's not extremely bloated or anything, but there's definitely some room for some trimming. A quick scan, for example, had me reading "Trainor's personality has been described as "quirky," "feisty," "spunky" and "sassy". While referenced and not a BLP violation or anything...that's...hardly something of substance that needs to be documented. I imagine its things like that, that Chase is referring to. Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitely bloated and reminiscent of a fan site in places. Agree with Chasewc91. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to "agree" with anything. That does not help the page. I see that the prose Serge pointed out has already been cut. Does anything more need to be done? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The article has been reduced from 2971 words (revision 658781909 at 14:31, April 19, 2015) to 1859 words (revision 658784667 at 03:22, April 23, 2015) and a lot of the less desirable material has been removed. My opinion is that the "too long" tag can be removed for now. Some of the content currently in the article might have to be trimmed as her career progresses though; it's early days yet. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the tag should be removed. This doesn't seem to be an unusually long article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A good job by all who contributed in improving the prose and deleting content bloat over the last several hours today. Agree that the tag can be removed at this time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused why it was ever tagged as "too long", which is not to say I disagree with everything that was cut. Seems there were some trivial details and poorly worded content, but I disagree with the general rationale of needing to restrict the length of this particular article, because it doesn't (and didn't) seem unusually long to me by Wikipedia standards.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Too long" (but I didn't tag it) probably isn't a measure of absolute length, but rather a judgment on length vs. depth. (I'm fine with removing the tag; tell you what, I'll go ahead and yank it, though that doesn't mean that more pruning doesn't need to happen.) I am surprised at the intransigence of All About That Bass, and I'm even more surprised that, after all the writing lessons they've been given here by a number of editors, they manage to make this edit, which bloats the very lead with a huge amount of totally trivial material. In their unending quest for GA, they are their own worst enemy. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• • MaranoFan, there is a clear difference between criticism of one's edits and personal attacks. Notice how WP:NPA says to "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? That's exactly what Drmies has done. Don't remove talk page comments without very good reason in the future, please.
    
    Drmies, the problems with depth and trivial info likely stem from the fact that MaranoFan wants Ms. Trainor to have a Michael Jackson or Madonna-sized bio when she hasn't even been famous for a year, compared to the decades that MJ/Madge have been famous. Classic cases of WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT. –Chase (talk / contribs) 12:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • First, WP:UNDUE does not mean that the article is too long or about too trivial a subject; it means that trivialities are covered in disproportionate detail. The policy is about balance and avoiding bias—not about denigrating other editors' choice in subject matter. Moreover, I've come to believe that fighting "fancruft" shoots the project in the foot. One man's 'cruft is another's Principia Mathematica (and vice versa). Cool Hand Luke 22:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
      • it means that trivialities are covered in disproportionate detail. Uhh, that's the point. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Deeming parent article "too long" while nominating break away articles for deletion

I've noticed the tagging and complaints that the parent article is too long have coincided with multiple deletion requests on various Meghan Trainor sub-articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Bass Tour (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor. These break away articles serve to reduce the length of the parent article, so simultaneous deletion requests seem contradictory. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Those articles are nominated for deletion over notability concerns. –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BoboMeowCat on this particular point. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing contradictory about it. An artist with one album doesn't need this many bytes. The list of songs is unencyclopedic, and the article on the tour doesn't meet even the most basic of guidelines. Plus, I don't think that the "break away articles serve to reduce the length of the parent article"--they serve to have more stuff on the artist, K-pop style. See WP:FART. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• She actually has four albums, it's just that only one of them meets notability criteria and had any commercial success. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe its contradictory - it's not like the song list would have been placed on the main artist page. Even the tour article, if it doesn't get kept by some chance, would probably be merged to the album article, not the artist article. Do I think "musical snobbery" and people getting upset with one another are adding fuel to the fire and complicating these things. Yes. But regardless of motivation, some of the concerns do have merit in regards to policy too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Including Title (EP)

I know, other stuff exists, but looking at almost all wiki articles, only studio albums are included here. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section: "Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included." -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the EP from the discography section per the guideline linked above. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 04:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The user who added the EP, generally looks for drama and conflicts on Meghan-related articles. But what surprises me in this instance is that she has given literally zero argument as to why the EP should be included. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 09:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sinatra

As a songwriter, she is influenced by Sinatra. "No one writes like [Sinatra] anymore, because it's hard", she said

Sinatra never wrote a song, so I am surprised to find this here Sierrab123 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

On what do you base your statement that Sinatra "never wrote a song"? See [7] and Category:Songs written by Frank Sinatra, which suggest otherwise. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's a good catch. It's clear from the source that she's listening to Sinatra's songs, not "songs written by Sinatra". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, because it's a marginally ignorant quote (ignorant of the facts and misleading to equally ignorant readers) it shouldn't be included at all? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the quote was ignorant. She likes the lyrics of the songs Sinatra sings. The attempted paraphrase was somewhat clumsy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of previous two albums

I don't think her acoustic studio albums should be removed just cause they were taken out of stores for Title to count as her debut. I think it should at least be noted. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because an album is out of print doesn't mean it is to be removed from an artist's discography. These weren't demos. They were commercially available and intended for the listening public. Many precedents have been set on this issue on Wikipedia. Eminem's Infinite, as well as Pantera's first four albums come to mind. All of them were released pre-fame, and have remained out of print ever since these artists achieved fame. All were either self-released or were released on small labels that didn't amount to much more than a self release. All can regularly be found on eBay. Exactly the same situation with Meghan Trainor. There's really no debate here. The removal of these albums was an improper edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.134.55 (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If Trainor's two acoustic albums are going to be included in the discography table, then shouldn't her self-titled be there too? It was even available for purchase on iTunes: [8] --Markhoris (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia but have Meghan Trainor's three self-released albums. If scans of the covers and backs with song titles will help keep the page accurate, please let me know. Thanks, Mike. I can be reached at moparmike1@shaw.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moparmike1 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Remove the albums before Title - The album has been covered by highly reputed sources as Trainor's debut, and is also classed as her debut all over Wikipedia. We are forgetting that people read Wiki and we cant change content as we like. Also, all the other examples cited by JP in his edits are covered by the universal music library, AllMusic through in-depth reviews. Simple, those albums just aren't notable and/or mentioned anywhere. We need to remove that confusing material ASAP. Or maybe remove it from the table and leave a small note after it. If someone can find reliable sources and start articles for these albums, They may be considered genuine.-- MaRAno ^FAN 14:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that a small mention in the article is enough and there is no need for it to be in the discography section. --Markhoris (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. They call it her debut because her other albums were pulled so they can call it her "debut" even though it really is not. Same thing with many albums, such as Drake Bell's Telegraph, that was released independantly, and some sources call his album It's Only Time his debut. It is an album available for purchase, so why would it be removed, it is a part of her discography. And to answer Markhoris, yes, that album should be included as well, as Title is not really her debut. And just because an article doesn't exist means nothing. There are plenty of articles like that. The two acoustic albums are even mentioned in the article. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph Prasad and the IP editor. Glossing over an artist's releases because of a marketing campaign by Trainor's record label is inaccurate, irresponsible, and a disservice to the reader. The albums' existence can be verified. An easy compromise is to note that Title was promoted by the record company as Trainor's debut album, as is done at Metamorphosis (Hilary Duff album) (Duff released a low-selling Christmas album the year prior to the release of Metamorphosis). –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see a real high ranking debut album, see Taylor Swift's debut or Miranda Cosgrove's Sparks Fly. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to include the pre-Title albums in the discography section, should it be in the studio albums sub-section? How about we do something similar to this: [9] I'm not sure if "mixtapes" is the right word though. Several sources ([10] [11] [12]) have referred to I'll Sing with You and Only 17 as acoustic albums, so maybe that's what we should call them? --Markhoris (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Trainor's 2009 album that another editor mentioned that was on iTunes should be included as well. It tends to be a problem when an album or EP was out for very little time and pulled, or if it just leaked. here is an example of something that is extremely hard to include, but iTunes is a little better. Include the 2009 as well. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

i was wondering if anyone here has meghans self-titled album if they could post ech song individually onto youtube and tell me the channel to @mtrain_empalm on instagram thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immacritic101 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Describing Trainor

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.

---

How should Trainor be described in the article?

• Singer
• Singer and songwriter
• Singer-songwriter
• singer/songwriter
• ? some other descriptor? -- Diannaa (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have notified some of the wikiprojects listed at the top of this talk regarding this RFC:

• WikiProject Record Production
• WikiProject Massachusetts
• WikiProject American music
• WikiProject Pop music
• WikiProject Biography
• WikiProject Musicians -- Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "Singer-songwriter" seems best. "Singer" would seem inaccurate as she's known for writing songs and her musical career began as a songwriter. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Awaiting the sources WV says describe her as anything but a singer-songwriter. Edit: Evidently, some reliable music sources also describe her as a "singer and songwriter". Like Chase, I state no preference here; whatever the consensus shows. Lapadite (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Singer-songwriter - reliable sources frequently call her this, and thats what we go by on Wikipedia. Additionally, the opposition to the term seems to largely be based on the "genre warrior" mindset of snobbery towards "legitimate forms of music". (And this is coming from a complete non-fan - I not a fan of her, her genre of music, even singer-songwriters really. I have no interest/connection to any of this, I just found out about this from ANI.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Singer-songwriter. We discussed this a few months ago and consenus was clear that we can call her a singer-songwriter because many sources do. Among them are the Guardian Billboard the AtlanticSpin magazine, USA Today the Independentthe NY Times and National Post. Those are highly reliable newspapers from three countries, respected news magazines and music industry magazines. That's more than enough to say she is a singer-songwriter per WP:V. Claims that she isn't a singer-songwriter because she doesn't fit the definition and that we should ignore the sources that call her one as "shoddy journalism" should be rejected per WP:OR. Calidum T|C 00:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Singer and songwriter OR singer/songwriter. "Singer-songwriter" is actually a very specific, limited label for an artform that applies to musicians meeting certain criteria. The Wikipedia article Singer-songwriter defines the artform as follows:

"Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and perform their own musical material including lyrics and melodies. As opposed to contemporary pop music singers who write or co-write their own songs, the term singer-songwriter describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition. Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano..."'

David Knopfler, well-known musician and music historian as well as brother of Mark Knopfler of the band Dire Straits gives a great definition and the history behind the singer-songwriter (see here for Knopfler's very concise article on the subject [13]. Although in the following link, reliable source All Music has the label incorrect (using "singer/songwriter" rather than "singer-songwriter"), they have the definition right (see here [14]). The Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World: Volume 11: Performance and Production (a reliable source) gives a concise definition as well: [15]. Another reliable reference is Frank Hoffman's Hoffman, Frank "The Singer-Songwriter Tradition" [16]. Based on the content and information found in these reliable references, Trainor does not meet the criteria for the artform label "singer-songwriter" as she does not solely write and perform her own compositions (the majority of the songs she performs and are included on her albums are co-written), and is generally backed by a full band.

Plenty of reliable sources refer to Trainor correctly as: singer, songwriter; singer and songwriter; singer/songwriter. For examples of such, see here: [17], [18], [19], to list a few. Even the official Meghan Trainor website does not refer to her as a singer-songwriter but as a singer/songwriter (see here [20]). There are reliable sources that wrongly refer to her as a singer-songwriter, as well. As editors, we are to follow policy, especially when it comes to content inclusion, that much is certain. But we are also to use WP:COMMON SENSE and WP:EDITDISC. Even WP:IAR when it applies. While not policy, each of those essays are applicable in this situation because humans are fallible and we should be using our brains not editing like policy-focused robots. This is an encyclopedia, encyclopedias are to contain facts and not just blindly reproduce content because it's "referenced". I beseech my fellow Wikipedians to do the right thing here: read the references I provided, know what the label really means, and not mislabel Ms. Trainor but correctly give her the designation and definition that fits what she is musically at this time in her career. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't believe people put as much thought into using hyphens or slashes as you think they do. I imagine most use "singer/songwriter" and "singer-songwriter" interchangeably. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I know they don't, Sergecross73. I believe that's why many who think nothing of her being called a singer-songwriter see just the terms singer and songwriter with a so-called harmless hyphen added and don't understand that the addition of the hyphen totally changes the meaning. And then there are her fans, thinking with emotion rather than logic and reason who honestly believe she is a singer-songwriter, fitting the narrow definition. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just referring to your comment in regards to her official website. You seemed to be implying the use of a slash had some sort of importance or meaning, judging by your extra bolding... I don't believe there is any significance there. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course the slash means something. Just like the hyphen means something. Just like commas mean something in the difference between "Let's eat, Grandma!" and "Let's eat Grandma!". It all means something. What's more important is what it means to readers who know the difference between singer and songwriter, a singer-songwriter, and singer/songwriter as well as a reputable encyclopedia that has content correct or incorrect. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it means something, and apparently neither does Wikipedia, considering singer/songwriter redirects to singer-songwriter without any sort of discussion on any sort of difference. I'm sorry, but your whole stance is a big load of WP:OR-based musical snobbery. Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Was that really necessary? Devolving to a personal attack and insults simply because I am looking at this differently than you and the others who have weighed in? And, for the record, redirects are created for all kinds of reasons. Not the least of which is because something was wrong and needed to be corrected (as is likely the case with singer/songwriter). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, I'm saying your stance is OR and more along the lines of the thinking an artist couldn't possibly meet the conditions of a certain term. It was just a rehash of me likening your stance to the typical genre warrior. Big on opinion, ignoring reliable sources, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Calling someone a snob is not a personal attack? On what planet? Nonetheless, I did provide reliable sources to support my comments and !vote. Plenty of them. Perhaps you missed them? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not. There's a difference between "snobbery" and calling someone a "snob". Just like the difference between saying "jerk move" (description of an action or stance) and calling someone a "jerk" (personal attack). Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly, this is such a non-issue. Sure, some sources refer to her as a "singer-songwriter," but if a few editors raise objections due to the artistic/genre implications of that term, couldn't "singer and songwriter" have sufficed and spared us the stupid edit wars and unnecessary discussions? No preference. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Chase. If I had to pick one I'd say singer and songwriter but this whole issue is silly and embarrassing. AniMate 00:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Singer-songwriter I agree with Sergecross73. As Calidum stated above, these sources, the Guardian, Billboard, the AtlanticSpin magazine, USA Today ,the Independent, the NY Times, and National Post come from WP:RS, and that is what we go by here at wikipedia, not what the opinion of one editor who is likely going by WP:OR. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Singer and songwriter. I prefer "singer and songwriter", which is a construct I've used in other musician biographies. "Singer-songwriter" is ambiguous, as it gives the impression that the person is an acoustic folk artist. "Singer and songwriter" gets support in reliable sources, too: Star-Telegram, The New York Times, and Billboard magazine. It's not a big deal, though. I agree that it's kind of silly to debate at length over this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Singer and songwriter suits her best, IMO, and is supported by sources. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Singer-songwriter - Concur with WordSeventeen, Sergecross73, Calidum, BoboMeowCat and the countless reliable sources that call Trainor a singer-songwriter. Check the above RfC for initial statement. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 07:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Others bring up good points that "singer/songwriter", "singer and songwriter", and other variants are also supported by sources. When sources differ, we reserve the editorial right to make the best call. I am curious as to why those on the "singer-songwriter" side are so vehemently opposed to any other term that conveys the idea that Ms. Trainor is a singer and a songwriter. The ~it's sourced!!!1~ argument doesn't hold much ground since "singer and songwriter" is sourced as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The same reason those making the "she can't be a singer-songwriter" are so entrenched in that position. And the "she doesn't fit the definition/ x fits her better" are orginial research at its finest. I don't even like her music, but the musically snobbery on display here is a joke. Calidum T|C 18:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    • But here's the thing: "singer-songwriter" is reliably sourced. "singer and songwriter" is also reliably sourced. So if we're going to come to an agreement, we need to discuss why one variant should be preferred over the other. Even if you disagree with the logic, perhaps the best move may be to not use "singer-songwriter" because of its implications. But advocating for "singer-songwriter" because some sources use it isn't going to advance this discussion any further. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I assumed it mattered because the wording of, "singer and songwriter" wiki-link to different articles than singer-songwriter. (Though, as I pointed out above, singer/songwriter redirects back to the same article as singer-songwriter.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, I would actually settle for singer and songwriter just to end this dispute. Can we please decide fast so that the article can move on? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 19:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment are usually left open for 30 days. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Summoned here by bot. The description of Trainor in the manner raised by this RfC depends entirely upon the consensus of reliable sources. To an uninvolved person who has never heard this individual's music, both "singer-songwrtier" and "singer and songwriter" convey precisely the same meaning. It is almost as if this is a discussion over whether to say that a person is "big" or "large." I do not for the life of me understand why this non-issue has generated such passions, and I personally have no preference. Coretheapple (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Singer/songwriter. Singer-songwriter seems to refer to something else, and "singer and songwriter" does not flow well. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• Singer-songwriter appears to be the most common term in sources, and is reasonable & appropriate in this case because the subject is notable for a song she co-wrote. Attempting to impose a prescriptive meaning on "singer-songwriter" to mean folk singer does not hold water when the majority of sources lean the other way. That said, all of the proposed options seem acceptable, and I'm utterly baffled this is the subject of edit wars.

As an aside, I note that I'm going down the list of current RFCs and this is the second one that seems to involve the same partisans. I don't know whether disputes on these articles may have been personalized, but some of the remarks above lead me to believe they may have been. Please keep a cool head and don't blow relatively small editorial choices out of proportion. Cool Hand Luke 22:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Singer-Songwriter -- Summoned here by bot. Singer-songwriter is what many reliable sources call her, therefore I would trust that and use that specific term here. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 21:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Many reliable sources actually don't refer to her as a singer-songwriter, Comatmebro. Mirror sites of unreliable sources and mirror sites taking the current "singer-songwriter" from this article do. Some reliable sources refer to her as singer-songwriter, but there are plenty of reliable sources that refer to her correctly as a singer and songwriter or as singer/songwriter (which isn't the same as singer-songwriter). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Singer-songwriter - Personally I'm not so keen on it but If most sources go by it then so should we. –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Most reliable sources don't refer to her as singer-songwriter, Davey, that's the problem. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:24, 14 May 2015 (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.

Removal of R&B category from talk page

Winkelvi and Chase, please stop removing the R&B category from this talk page which another editor recently added. That Trainor's music is considered R&B is supported by reliable sources, why are you reverting this? [21] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, making one of my few edits before I get banned, considering Trainor's article has genre Blue-eyed Soul and the R&B includes Soul, it should be included. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering this is supported by RS and those reverting have declined to participate in discussion, the WikiProject recently added by User:DepressedPer has been restored.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

large removal of sourced content

I restored a large removal of sourced content here: [22] and began trimming it and copy editing it. Some of it still seems to need copy editing and trimming, but I think we should try to avoid blanket reverts and removal of multiple reliable sources. Doing such doesn't seem good for the article or for editor retention. These appeared to be good faith edits, containing useful encyclopedic content that seems better cleaned up than blanket reverted.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what was so bloated and POV and unencyclopedic about my update that it needed to be blind reverted like that. The writing is also of a good, concise encyclopedic standard. I'd also like to point out that while copyediting please also take the sources into account as numerous factual errors keep getting introduced. One example in the last c/e calling the Spampinatos Trainor's brothers when they are not and they're in their 50s and 60s. And one before I did my update, read that she released an album through GarageBand. Plus MANY more. Similar embarrassing factual errors keep getting introduced here by uninvolved editors. - Lips ^{are movin} 23:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sourced or not, bloat has been a problem at this article previously, and what was added bloated it even further. Don't efit war and just put it all back. This is a huge amount of content to add to an article that has already been too big and trimmed down previously (see prior discussion above). Further, there was enough of the added content which had an unencyclopedic and POV tone to it, use of weasel words, etc. Let's discuss the proposed content additions - further, it's now contested, and none of it should go back in until consensus is reached. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you do not have consensus to blanket revert this, doing so involves removing multiple reliable sources. Please work to improve instead of blanket reverting. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, work collegiality and cooperatively together, not just adding a bunch more crap to an already too long article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not a bunch of crap. The article is hardly long. It is all notable encyclopedic content. Take your music snobbery elsewhere. You are the one who clearly does not want to co-operate hence the endless petty, time-consuming dramas at Meghan Trainor articles. - Lips ^{are movin} 00:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've imposed short full protection in order to avoid anyone getting blocked for WP:3RR. Can you please see if there's any middle ground amongst you? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, NeilN. I was waiting for one of them to revert it all back in again, now they will be forced to discuss. I'd like to know, first off, why Lips thinks the article needs more content when it's already been declared more than a month ago to be too long and too filled with cruft and over-detail on trivial stuff. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If you actually bothered reading what I added instead of blind reverting and baiting, you'd know: A) a lot has happened since I first wrote this article. B) all of your factual errors from your trimming were fixed. There was in fact hardly anything "cruft" bloated or trivial, if you are looking for an example of that to create another pointless time-consuming drama about - get to work on Taylor Swift instead. There is hardly anything wrong with my version. Nothing needs to be discussed. You just need to give up the musical snobbery and constant wikihounding. - Lips ^{are movin} 00:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was very disruptive toward article improvement. Winkelvi was asked to discuss specific concerns and I was working to trim and copy edit. This cannot be fixed via discussion because there is too much content. Much better to allow the copy editing and trimming to continue and we should be able to restore the many reliable sources removed via Winkelvi's edit warring to continue to improve article--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Are you amenable to looking at BoboMeowCat trims in the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think you should allow for other editors who have a vested interest in this article to comment here and also work on the desired additions. I'm amenable to improving what's already here -- such a large chunk of bytes added, more POV, and unencyclopedic tone isn't what the article needs. The prior discussions with comments from some very good and respected content editors regarding actual improvement are testimony to that. In the next few hours, Iwill take a close look at all of what was added and make comments here with my thoughts and suggestions regarding it. My problem with it from the jump was the fact that there was so much added, the tone in too much of it was not improving anything, and that it was essentially a rewrite of what had already been worked on and agreed upon by several of us over the last few months. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: In less than six hours the full protection will expire. I expect BoboMeowCat will want to revert soon after and work on changes. It would help if you (or anyone else) had some concrete suggestions for him. Otherwise the situation will probably just repeat, this time with edit-warring reports. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: If I lift the protection are you willing to wait for Winkelvi's comments before you revert again? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, I actually don't plan on reverting until I have time to work on the trimming and copy editing; however, I do not have rollback, so if Winkelvi edits in between then, it will be very time consuming for me to restore all the reliable sources he deleted in those mass reverts. Before Winkelvi's second mass revert, I asked him to instead please work to improve the content. I still think that would be a viable option, because I've known Winkelvi to be good at copy editing on past articles I've edited with him, but only if this copy editing is not done with preconceived idea that everything has to go, that it's all "bloat", which doesn't seem to do much to improve this article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will be lifting full protection. All of you please think carefully before doing any reverts. I don't want to see anyone get blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Note I requested the article to be copyedited at WP:GOCE right after I added the content, and I would recommend that BoboMeowCat or the uninvolved editor from GOCE does the trimming/copyediting instead to prevent actions of bad faith and poor judgement. - Lips ^{are movin} 01:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Any GOCE editor can do it, "uninvolved" isn't applicable unless you're referring to an biased -- but biased about what? Nevertheless, I have made some comments below about the content you attempted to add. Which, I see, you have summarily dismissed as "laughable". Not exactly helpful or unbiased. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted to last good version.

It's a mess that is hard to make out. Mess started with BoboMeowCat big addition. Atleast 5 refs have been borked, chopped up or mangled. Probably done by accident. That is what I can make out from the surface, so there is probably more. Revert me if you want, but only if the refs are fixed.

Also, why the link farms? For example, do you really need 10 refs to source she is a singer-songwriter? Bgwhite (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite - if you see in the sections above we're in the middle of a WP:BRD enforced by Winkelvi who reverted the expansion I did 2 days ago. It was decided that we do it section by section. Hoping Winkelvi can conclude his comments regarding the first section today, so that we can move swiftly forward to make the page of a good and stable standard again. - Lips ^{are movin} 06:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted. See the discussion sections above. They were finally making some progress, so I don't think a giant wholesale revert is the most helpful option here. Please, if you're unhappy with it, please help them alter it piece by piece, like they've been doing. Or at least discuss further and only revert wholesale if that's the consensus on what to do here. (Also, in the section above, I mentioned the excessive refs used for single sentences. Its something they're going to work on once they've got the content down right.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I agree with the others, please improve instead of mass reverting. I think it’s unusual for a BLP on a musician not to have an “Early life” section and instead just have a few sentences related to early life squished into the career section - especially for a subject that has been covered so widely in reliable sources. I agree the section could probably use further improvement, but seems more productive to improve it instead of removing it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sergecross73 et al. Well, you guys have managed to make things worse. There are now even more borked refs. One doesn't work on the material and then work on the removed/borked refs later. Cleanup the borked refs now and fix new problems when they occur. Bgwhite (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really rewriting, just trying to mediate a bit...but can you be more specific as to which parts need fixing? Considering the large quantity of refs, its not easy to tell what you're talking about. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)