Talk:Yoga (Janelle Monáe and Jidenna song)

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

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Original research and interpretation

Large parts of this article ("Song information" and "Criticism" in particular) are severely lacking in sources, and sounds much as if the author is pushing a thesis. I personally happen to agree with that thesis, but it's not particularly encyclopaedic in tone. I feel it's best if interpretations of the song are cited from independent sources. Surely anything else would be original research? The "Criticism" section has no citations at all as of yet, and should be reworked as soon as possible. ZilchWoolham (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not properly sourced and very opinonated.

This page has continuously been edited to remove non-factual information and opinions only for it to continuously be reverted back to it's original form. Most citations on the page are either from illegitimate and/or vague sources (I.E. Youtube comment sections or personal blogs) or sources that don't say any of the things they are being cited for. Just because you put a citation next to a piece of writing doesn't automatically make it a proper citation. If the source of the citation is not reputable or if it does not actually say any of the things you cite it for then it isn't a real citation. I will be contacting an admin if this page doesn't get cleaned up soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dididiipro (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes none of the aforementioned issues

The article has been edited by various people so that now none of the above mentioned issues exist in the article. Please disregard the "Original research and interpretation" and "Not properly sourced and very opinonated" sections of this page because they are now irrelevant to the discussion on this talk page since the article has now been edited to fix those issues. Gcock2k10 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gcock2k10, I reverted you for a valid reason. Per WP:Talk, you should not delete talk page comments once matters are resolved. All you need to do is comment in the section on the talk page that the problems no longer exist. We have WP:Archiving for putting away past talk page matters. Either way, as noted, I am taking this WP:Edit war of an article off my WP:Watchlist since it is being edited by people who don't know how to properly edit Wikipedia, including those who are clearly WP:Socking. Flyer22 (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The next time I visit this article, it will likely be to report editors at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard, report WP:Socks, and/or get this article WP:Semi-protected. WP:ANI might also be an option. Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, I was not aware of this WP:Socking thing and made a few edits myself without signing in out of laziness, and I've been using my browser's "in private" option, which supposedly hides my IP info, so if I committed WP:Socking then it was by mistake. This has completely discouraged me from ever making Wikipedia edits again. To find out further info on this article's topic, I will simply use resources other than Wikipedia. Thanks for opening my eyes. --Gcock2k10 (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gcock2k10, see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Editing while logged out; editing while logged out is not socking unless you are doing it to deceive others by making them think you are a different editor or (in some cases) to avoid scrutiny. Also, days ago, I asked about this article at this, this and this page, but I haven't yet gotten replies. And, indeed, looking at the situation closer, there was WP:Original research going on at this article. Also see the WP:Synthesis aspect of WP:Original research. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why were various Billboard charting peaks removed?

The chart info of the single's peak positions on various Billboard R&B/Hip Hop charts was removed, currently leaving only two chart positions even though the song has charted on more than two charts. The charting peak info was taken from Billboard^[1] and was a part of this article before being removed by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk). Was it because the various R&B/Hip Hop charts do not matter to the person who removed that information? There was no clear reason given as to why those peak position numbers were removed. Why are there only two chart peak numbers currently listed in this article when the single has appeared on many more charts as previously referenced? --Gcock2k10 (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that digital sales are merely components which define the main charts, which use sales, streaming and airplay data to determine the overall position on those charts. Since the song has reached the main chart, inclusion of sales charts becomes somewhat overkill. This is explained at WP:CHARTMATH. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Chart Search". Billboard. Retrieved 11 July 2015.

[1] "Chart Search". Billboard. Retrieved 11 July 2015.

[1]