Talk:Black Magic (Little Mix song)

Black Magic (Little Mix 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
Date	Process	Result
December 3, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 15 May 2016. The result of the move review was Closure endorsed.

The format.

It has been confirmed by both their label and several retailers in both Japan and Europe that it Will be released as a CD single as of tomorrow, July 24. Please do not change the format again. Christianofficial (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 July 2015

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 13 March 2016. The result of the move review was Endorsed.

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: not moved. There is consensus that making the article title more ambiguous is not helpful to the reader. In ictu oculi has cited SONGDAB as a reason not to move, while the minority of supporters have not cited any policy or guideline in favor of moving. (non-admin closure) Chase (talk | contributions) 22:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Magic (Little Mix song) → Black Magic (song) – This is the only song called "Black Magic" to have an article on Wikipedia. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:D921:DFE4:B864:7C71 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - so what, other songs with article mentions. See WP:SONGDAB. What's more of an issue is anyone looking for anything else then has to whirr and wait for a giant article on a 2015 latest thing to download before clicking a hatnote (which will need to be added) and then going to the dab page. There are other songs before the latest one. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is the title track to the album Black Magic (Swollen Members album) as well as being songs covered in two other album articles -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I disagree with disambiguating against topics that we don't actually cover on Wikipedia and that aren't notable. It just lands us in a whole world of problems. And no, I do not consider one line in a track listing to mean something is "covered". Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jenks24.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Long term, people are far more likely to be wanting the Swollen Members song, and there are in all six songs listed at Black Magic (disambiguation), five of them with this exact title. The case for this being the primary meaning in the context of songs has not been made, and is most unlikely. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "people are far more likely to be wanting the Swollen Members song" – on what basis? The Little Magic song has significant coverage in reliable sources (just look at the amount of sources in the article) and so far no on has shown that any of these other songs do, including the Swollen Members song. If one topic is notable and another is not then of course that is a clear case of primary meaning. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - irrelvant disambiguation is best avoided. None of the other songs are the slightest bit notable compared to this one. Unreal7 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ambiguous disambiguation is not a good idea. It is a "Little Mix song" isn't it? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chart succession box

I added a chart succession box saying it was UK #1, but it was subsequently removed. The reason? As exactly quoted by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: "succession boxes have not been added to UK #1s since 2011." and "consensus needed to start again." (He/she has had a dodgy account history: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars) How is it wrong to add a succession box for songs made in or after 2011? If the song was #1, it deserves a place in the history of #1s so users can easily navigate without looking up each #1 on their respective articles. You can check the Official Charts Company's website for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00sClassicGamerFan (talk • contribs) 08:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dodgy account history there, just a blank user page that has been deleted a number of times because of vandals who tried to add unwanted content to it. A RFC took place regarding the use of succession boxes in song and album articles took place here in December 2010 and no consensus could be reached. Therefore, succession boxes added before that time have not been removed, while no new ones have been added to such articles since that time. If you think they should be there, please restart the discussion. If one needs navigation between such songs, there are lists of number ones to do just that. Otherwise, there is no need for a link to another song that has no other relationship to this one. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 June 2016

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 — Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Magic (Little Mix song) → Black Magic (song) – Move to the shorter title, per WP:CONCISE, because we have no article on another song of the same name. Since the previous requested move a year ago, an RFC on our article titles policy talk page found that songs and albums should take the more concise title (using only "song" as the disambiguator, not the artist name as well), and this move would be in conformance to that. While the previous close was confirmed at a move review just a month ago, the reason why it was endorsed was because of timeliness (or a lack thereof), and not because the close was properly made. Calidum ¤ 03:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per RFC result. SST flyer 06:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per result. Unreal7 (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per last time. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Magic (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Checked – first archive link worked, second one didn't... have altered article accordingly. Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements for GA Nomination

Hi! I'm planning to improve this article as much as possible for it to be nominated for a GA status. Currently, It has a B status and I think it already satisfies the criteria for a good article, but I will still try to improve the page for a higher chance to be accepted. If anyone is willing to help, that would be great. Thank you! GabbyMix01 (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GabbyMix01: I would say the article needs some copyediting and source replacements, but I agree that, with a bit of tweaking, this article will be good article material. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Little Mix black magic lm5 tour (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Magic (Little Mix song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 16:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking a look at this! — Ghost River 16:38, 23 November 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 lead

Link "girl group"
"released on 21 May 2015 through Syco Music"
"album, Get Weird (2015)."
"received ~~critical~~ acclaim from music critics"
"becoming the group's first single to reach number one there" → "the first Little Mix single to do so"
"The song remained at number one for three" → "It remained there for three"
Comma after "Outside of the United Kingdom"
"sixteen additional countries" → "16 additional countries" per MOS:NUMERAL
- Y Done for this section. ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 12:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background and release

Link first instance of Little Mix in the body
"The group said that the new album is "stronger" and will be about relationships and that is also better than their two previous albums, DNA (2012) and Salute (2013)." → "The group said that the new album would be "stronger" and "better" than their two previous albums, DNA (2012) and Salute (2013), and would be about relationships."
Link lead single
"a "whole new sound" compared to previous material."
"they've done" → "they have done" per MOS:CONTRACT
"They also said that their album was delayed due to the fact that they wrote a whole album but scrapped it, because" → "Album delays were attributed to the fact that Little Mix's original output was scrapped because"
"by tweeting" → "when she tweeted"
"the song's title to be" → "that the song was titled"
Link "leaked" to Internet leak
Last sentence needs a citation
- Y Done for this section.ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 06:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

No comma after "teen-pop song"
"(add.)" doesn't need to be included in this section
"said, ~~that it is "Basically that~~"we are...""
- Y Done for this section.ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 07:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

"Upon its release"
Link "music critics" to Music journalism
Hyphen in "'80s-influenced"
"incredible catchy" should either be "incredibly" or have [sic] written after "incredible", depending on what the source says
Don't need (2012) after DNA since it was introduced earlier
- Y Done for this section.ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 07:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance

"On the UK Singles Chart, the song entered at number one," → ""Black Magic" entered at number one on the UK Singles Chart"
Link "streams" to streaming media
Per MOS:EASTEREGG, link all of "European digital downloads" and not just "European"
Last sentence needs a citation
- Y Done for this section.ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 07:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

Background and synopsis

"the group posted" → "Little Mix posted"
"said to an interview" → "said in an interview"
The whole second paragraph can and should be condensed into only a few sentences; specific allusions to certain witchy media should also be included here
- Y Done for this section. I tried trimming the second paragraph and removed some unnecessary sentences to the best extent that I can. I also changed some tenses to past tense.ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 07:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"references of" → "references to"
"spellbinding" in quotes
"However, the music video also received some negative reviews." → "The acclaim for the music video was not universal."
- Y Done for this section.ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 07:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

Comma after "Black Magic Radio Tour"
Comma after Total Access
"among singers" → "alongside singers"
- Y Done for this section.ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 07:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions

Per WP:USEPROSE, this shouldn't necessarily be a bulletpoint list. I'd also like more detail on each one, particularly regarding release dates of these performances.
The Holly Kenyon one needs a citation
- (talk page stalker) Just to note that per WP:SONGCOVER, if it can't be sourced or if there's nothing more to say than "XXXX covered the song on the 2019 album...", it should probably be removed... simply the fact that someone did a version of the song live once or recorded it on an album isn't notable, unless there has been some independent coverage and discussion of the cover. Richard3120 (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y Done for this section. Thank you for the info @Richard3120:! I removed the Holly Kenyon cover 'cause I can't find a reliable source to back it up, plus, I think it's not notable enough to be included here anyway. ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 07:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formats and track listings

Good

Personnel and credits

Should be split into two columns, one for performing artists and one for the technical aspects
- Y Done. ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 12:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

Per WP:USEPROSE, there should be some actual prose here, not just the chart
- Y Done. ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 12:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Unclear how you got the "Archived from the original" etc. italicized, but it shouldn't be
Sugarscape is inconsistently italicized throughout
[92] (Sugarscape) should be in title case per MOS:ALLCAPS
- Y Done for this section. ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 12:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Images are properly licensed and relevant
No stability concerns in the revision history
Copyvio score looks good

Apologies for taking so long, I have been inundated with work and the holiday. Putting on hold now. — Ghost River 18:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright! I'm done implementing your suggested changes for this article. If you have any more, please do inform me. Thank you! ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 07:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I trimmed down the synopsis quite a bit. Please change any material that is inaccurate, as I have not seen the video, but I believe I cut most of the cruft. Looking good to pass now. — Ghost River 23:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]