Jump to content

Talk:Love Yourself

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Love Yourself (song))

Requested move 4 December 2015

[edit]
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. Jenks24 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Love Yourself (song) → Love Yourself (Justin Bieber song) – Because of Love Yourself (Kimi ga Kirai na Kimi ga Suki). Unreal7 (talk) 18:16, 4 December 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.

Requested move 16 March 2016

[edit]
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. Notwithstanding Unreal7's borderline badgering on every oppose comment, and a lack of WP:AGF in response to the last oppose, the nominator and supports make a more compelling argument (as well as a slight weight of numbers 7:5). We don't need to disambiguate against combinations of English words that have no encyclopedic or cultural/historical value. And the evidence seems to be that the Asian songs have considerably less long term significance and usage in reliable sources than the JB song.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– When I proposed the first move three months ago, it was because I didn't think this song deserved to be the primary topic at the time. Now, however, it absolutely does. Outside of Asia (at least for the two that have articles), none of the other three topics are notable in the slightest, they never have been and they never will be. Unreal7 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, ignoring evidence due to inanity. There will likely eventually come a time when we score out your opposition unless you actually start giving factual evidence for opposition. Unreal7 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per WP:RECENT, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (long term significance), WP:SONGDAB, WP:PRECISION (which Love Yourself?), WP:CRYSTALBALL, and ambiguous disambiguation is not a good idea, and most importantly, the nomination dated 4th December 2015 by the same nominator, which was unanimously supported for a move to the present title? Not only do we have repeated nominations for when people don't get their own way at RM, but now we get repeated nominations when they do get their own way. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what you may think, SONGDAB says to disambiguate the article only when necessary. It's abundantly clear it is not necessary in this case because we have a clear primary topic. Calidum ¤ 18:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Songdab is only one of the guidelines mentioned, and, after your change earlier today it reads, "Only when necessary, disambiguation should be done using..." well excuse me, my opinion is that in this instance it is necessary and that is proven by the nominator himself. If you want to ignore the bit of primary topic that reads "long-term significance" that's your right, but it doesn't make you right, nor does it benefit the encyclopedia. And to add, for everybody's benefit, I cannot see any benefit in continuous moving of articles - and I don't give a monkeys' which direction. In other words, for the hard of reading, moving an article because the primary topic has changed is a load of crystal balls. Nobody else is going to record this song, so qualifying it with "Justin Bieber" is no hardship for any reader, editor or other except those... you know the rest. I also cannot see why song titles cannot encourage disambiguation over primary, when it is accepted in other projects. Enough --Richhoncho (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ICYMI, there's actually little-to-no point in the other articles even existing. They are not notable AT ALL - and like I said, they never were to begin with. Unreal7 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what you said three months ago. A generic search at Google and this song is about 5th entry, for "Love Yourself" We are supposed to be building here, not moving the furniture around every 5 minutes. These RMs can be damaging to the greater good and here is a fine example. There is absolutely no need to move the article - it can and would stay where it is forever unless there is a major change of guidelines on notability, but if it is moved there is a chance we will have move back, or add (song) to the title. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You and IIO use that exact same opposition reason every single time (e.g. Shut Up and Drive, Thinking Out Loud, etc.). Unreal7 (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly true, and I thank you for your conclusive proof with this nomination that I am right. Anybody looking for this song is looking for a song by Bieber - seems pointless to remove his name because of primarytopic - which also states quite clearly it's for editors to discuss IF there is benefit to having a primary topic. Generally speaking, there isn't much benefit for songs and why some of use appear to object to these unnecessary moves. Remember, the primary topic for any reader is the title they are looking for - irrespective of how many other people are looking for the same title. This is further confounded by "Love Yourself" being a fairly common expression so will be used for other titles in the future (book, film, song or foodstuff) - Do you want a large wager on that? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Unreal7 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it should be a dicdef entry, I said because it was a common phrase it will be re-used (hint: book, film, song or foodstuff), so we do actually agree we are working on an encyclopaedia, but not the naming casino you wish to turn it into. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And like I said, you are looking into the future ("it will be re-used/used later"). Unreal7 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's what's required by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and it is still your nomination so I have to assume you have considered the future, or failed to... --Richhoncho (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not generic at all when there are only three other subjects it could refer to AND none of them are remotely notable. Unreal7 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "a generic phrase". That's the same pointless reasoning that was used to oppose the moves of Shut Up and Drive and Thinking Out Loud. WP:NAD. Unreal7 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While it's true that outside of Asia (40% of world population) the Bieber song is the primary topic, in Asia (60% of world population) the Bieber song is not notable in the slightest, never has been and never will be. WP:WORLDVIEW. Added Karen Mok's song to the dab page. Timmyshin (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Chinese or Japanese one. By the way, the album is only notable in each respective nation. That means SFA in comparison to Justin Bieber's song. Also, Hong Kong's population is only 7 million (and this song has sold almost 7 million!), and the album has almost no information, so please don't try to proclaim that 60% of the world knows the album and the other song whilst only 40% know this one, that this song will never be notable in Asia, or (worst of all), that a song which is moderately notable only in Japan is automatically more notable than a huge hit all over the world. That is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. You strike me as a troll, and given that your user page has already been deleted three times, you probably are. Unreal7 (talk) 17:38, 23 April 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.

Fb Major? Reasoning?

[edit]

Could anybody tell me why the article declares the song's key to be "Fb Major"? Surely E Major would be equivalent, and more importantly, E Major actually makes sense in the context of written sheet music. E Major has 4 sharps. There is no such key signature for "Fb Major". Ilike1954rcamodels (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fb Major is very rarely found in actual notation: see Fb Major. But this does not appear to be one of those cases. The published version uses E Major. I've changed the text unless someone has a source stating otherwise. Dohn joe (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love Yourself "borrows" from other songs. Worth adding to article?

[edit]

Particularly the website "samethattune.com" illustrates how the song uses chord progressions from other songs. So far I found mention of (and noticed by comparison) similarities to Bee Gees "How deep is your love", Bessie Smith's "Nobody Knows you when you're down and out", Rainbow's "Since you've been gone", Sam Smith's "Stay with me" and Red Hot Chili Pepper's "Scar Tissue". Should such "tributing" be included, or is it only noteworthy once somebody sued claiming plagiarizm?93.200.2.251 (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous how could he do that. Did he pay these persons. AFREEKA2016 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

[edit]
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 (non-admin closure). feminist 11:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Love Yourself → Love Yourself (Justin Bieber song) – The song by Mary. J Blige is equally notable.74.105.204.67 (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - existence does not equate notability. Unreal7 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The Bieber song is the primary topic: it has topped a multitude of international major record charts, is certified multi-platinum in nearly every major music market, placed first in the 2016 Billboard Year-End Hot 100, and has an official video with over 1.1 billion views on YouTube, placing it 38th among all videos on the site. The Bilge song hasn't charted on any singles or component chart, has yet to receive a single certification, and has received just over 600k views on its official lyric video on YouTube (no official music video has been released yet). LifeofTau 07:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose – Same reasons as the above two. Plus, typing "Love Yourself" in Google comes up with nearly all Bieber results on the first page. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:44, 14 May 2017 (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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Love Yourself. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Love Yourself. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Yourself. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded in Australia or Los Angeles?

[edit]

At the top it says this song was recorded at Ginger Recording Studios in Cremorne, New South Wales, Australia. Under "credits and personnel" it says this song was recorded at Record Plant in Los Angeles. Both can't be correct. Ajlipp (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_Yourself&oldid=1188459580"