User talk:De88

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Hi, not to be greedy or anything but I always have the tendency to address all concerns right away lmao. For several current inputs in Lorde FAC, I have addressed quite a few, but I think I should let you contribute your insights as well. P.s. given the current situation I think we can totally promote the article to FA :) — HĐ (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Wow, the second user recommended a lot of suggestions to the article. I will try to fix most of the remaining ones and see what should be added, deleted, etc. It definitely seems to me that it may pass the FA-criteria rather quickly. The majority of the information is properly sourced, well-written and succinct. De88 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: I propose to add a picture of Lorde on her Public image section. This photo (that was previously included in this section) can now be well-integrated with the information provided. A caption about her controversial dancing could suffice. What do you think? De88 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, I think it illustrates the article well! — HĐ (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I'm considering commons:File:Lorde - Coachella 2014 (07).jpg because this photo better illustrates how Lorde normally dances to her songs and also shows her face clearly — HĐ (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Yes, I highly agree. How should we caption the image though? I feel that I would end up taking a huge chunk of text if I wrote it. De88 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something short like "Lorde is known for her unchoreographed dancing onstage, which has polarised audiences." — HĐ (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: I am contemplating on whether to add a comment from Duncan Jones, David Bowie's son, regarding her tribute performance at the Brit Awards. Also, I definitely think Bowie and Dave Grohl's comments about her music deserve to be included in the Public image section. Lots of music veterans admire her. That should be noted, especially when considering her young age. De88 (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can add that comment within the Career section, but not necessarily Public Image. The comments help readers understand why veterans hold Lorde in high regards and compensate the flow, too, but separating the comments into Public Image may break the flow I'm afraid. — HĐ (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and regarding Melodrama section, I think we can add bits of info on Lorde explaining her second album would be "completely different", and also on how her breakup inspires the songwriting. That resonates with the departure from minimalist styles and change in lyrical content in the following sections — HĐ (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: I do think the "2012—2015" section is way too large and adding those comments will create a cluster of information. However, I think that adding bits about Melodrama's different sound could eliminate the ugly white space in that section. De88 (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the Pure Heroine/Hunger Games section we don't need to add anything (Dave Grohl's comment is already there). Adding Bowie son's (or Bowie himself's) comment in the Melodrama section is perfectly fine imo — HĐ (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Just went ahead and added Jones' comment. I want to advise you that Lorde's page may or may not see an increase in vandalism once it loses its semi-protected status on March 3rd. De88 (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm aware of that. But if the article suffers from continuous vandalism then a subsequent protection shall be possible.

Regarding Lorde's influences: since Lorde has no formative influence (she hardly listened to Prince/David Bowie [1], so their deaths may have influenced Melodrama, but not their styles / Robyn is only mentioned once), I think we can either omit pictures or add someone that Lorde has constantly mentioned i.e. Kanye (she covered his songs, "Bravado" was inspired by him etc.) or Frank Ocean (his style influenced the whole Melodrama structures); or even lyrical influences. Bowie pic seems biased to me atm. — HĐ (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: I respectfully disagree. Robyn played a tremendous inspiration for many of the songs on Melodrama. Vice even made a timeline of Lorde's admiration for the Swedish singer, covering her song multiple times (including her tour), using "Dancing On My Own" as studio inspiration and she's praised her several times. The timeline goes as early as 2015. As for Kanye, he served as inspiration for the Pure Heroine album but is not mentioned on her econd album. Lorde also frequently cites Bowie as inspiration for Melodrama. These two singers definitely helped Lorde craft her music as she transitioned into an adult and it seems like they still inspire her. De88 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comments about Robyn, but for Bowie I would have to argue against. Per Telegraph (and some sources I have come across), Bowie's inspiration is only visible on "Perfect Places" through the lyrics "heroes fading", presumably his death has inspired the track. But one track alone doesn't mean Bowie has had a formative influence on Lorde or anything similar. I suggest replacing Bowie's photo with a photo of Lorde's lyrical influence, preferably T.S. Elliot. After all she is also well known for her crafted lyrics, not musical styles alone — HĐ (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: It's odd to not include Bowie since she holds a strong admiration for him. However, if that is not enough to keep the image, then an image of T.S. Eliot could suffice. De88 (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Hey, I think the article is coming out rather nicely. I still think the article's only flaw is the "2012—2015" section. I know we attempted to condense or accurately define the section but it still feels kind of weak. I see no issue with the third or fourth paragraphs; however, the first need fixing. I think Maclachlan's opinion about the EP being a "strong piece of music" serves no purpose. As a reader, what matters is how he managed to convince Lorde's record label, one that was not independent but rather one of the biggest in the world, to release it on an audio distribution platform for free download. And I think that is exactly what one of the reviewers also wanted. There is no mention of the "deal" he made, nor the label's reason for agreeing to this as well. De88 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you said, but the interview implies that Maclachlan and Lorde were in full control of their decisions, so I don't think Machlachlan had to negotiate with Universal NZ to come up with a deal whatsoever. The reviewer wanted clarifications on the connection between 60,000 free downloads and UMG commercially releasing the EP, so I think that should be done by now. For the wording I'm waiting further reviews from that reviewer. — HĐ (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Heartlines you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Heartlines for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Russthehead (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)(talk) 13:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Hi. I was recently attempting to contribute edits to this article in good faith, and having first hand evidence through personal experience. As first hand experience does not count as evidence, I added citations from setlist.fm listings, which you then removed. Having witnessed firsthand two gigs at the BBC and O2 where the said Lorde version was used as I stated, I sought to add further evidence such as a journalist article and a YouTube video. I understand that the YouTube may ultimately not be suitable for inclusion but added it as incontrovertible evidence for other editors that Tears for Fears absolutely do use the Lorde version without any doubt whatsoever, and that I am not in any way inventing a story for whatever reason. I had hoped that although the YouTube link may be removed by other editors, this would at least be considered the proof that it most certainly is, and therefore the remainder of my edits and citations may remain in situ. However, I see once again that all of my contributions have been removed, and that you have commented 'First of all, stop reverting my edits. None of the sources you used are reliable...'. This leads me to question, A) Are you a general member of the public or an employee of Wikipedia, because you seem to deem yourself of considerable importance and stature such that simple respectful language does not apply; and B) Given such requirements for evidence, you may wish to proceed in taking down some many billions of notes and citations which however suggestive are not anything as clear as proof - first-hand evidence from the source does not necessarily constitute proof as opinions, accounts, and statements not only often change with time but may be insincere at any point. I unfortunately get the impression that for you, truth is inconsequential, whereas a sense of power is incredibly important indeed. I am simply speaking from my humble perspective in the hope of obtaining a clearer understanding and preventing me from wasting my time in future in endeavours to distribute facts that are likely to be of interest. I am writing this to highlight how events have appeared to me and simply contact you directly to highlight how your interactions come across. I intend no offence whatsoever; I am simply communicating my irritation. We should all be open to criticism use this as a doorway to open and honest discussion. I would be thankful for any clarification you can offer. --Russthehead (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Russthehead: I reverted those edits because none of the sources used were reliable or notable. The Electricity Club reads more like a blog than an established journalist site. Using unofficial YouTube videos and citations from setlist.com (which is edited by anyone) is also not recommended. I apologize if my comments came across as harsh. Several editors abused this page a while back, changing the release date, adding non-notable cover material, etc. It got to the point where I had to request higher protection for the page. Yes - I know the Lorde version was in fact used for their tour. However, good faith edits are usually reverted especially when the source is not notable. Besides, I did a quick Google search right now and I found sources from The Guardian and The Irish Times that both explicitly mention Tears for Fears using Lorde's version of their song. De88 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Russthehead: I went ahead and re-added the information with a proper source. De88 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: I am satisfied that you have found a way to include and verify Tears for Fears' use of this recording. This to me is a highly notable fact, absence of which would have been bizarre. Russthehead (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Dude, we did it! Lorde is finally a Featured Article. I was so glad you offered to collaborate with me, which facilitated the work faster than I thought. Thank you and congrats! HĐ (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Thank you! I recall wanting to nominate it since winter 2017 but none of the *Melodrama* (or the album) were Good Articles so it discouraged me. So glad it finally passed the nomination! De88 (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Melodrama World Tour you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Melodrama World Tour you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Melodrama World Tour for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Melodrama World Tour you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Melodrama World Tour for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Lorde (estimated annual readership: 1,400,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! +1 Congrats, and keep up the great work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun at WT:ALBUMS#RfC on producer entries in infobox album regarding the |producer= parameter used in this infobox. Please add your comments there. – TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foil (song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Foil (song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Foil (song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Foil (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Foil (song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Whom it May Concern:

Ribs by Lorde is in E major, not in A flat major. The sheet music on musicnotes.com is incorrect and the website in question is an unreliable source, as any composer can upload their arrangements to said website. I made this change to E major on the 22nd of April and included what citations I could find (which are admittedly as unreliable, as finding a source for ANY of this information is difficult), but I can confirm, as someone with perfect pitch who has done a harmonic analysis of the music, that the song is in E major. I am formally requesting that it be changed back to the information I have provided, as the information currently listed is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.114.124.161 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 (soundtrack) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how have you been doing? It's been quite a time since we collaborated on Lorde, and I'm thinking if you wanna collab again? I'm rather busy these days, so I'm thinking of getting Green Light (Lorde song) to FA? The article is already in good shape and it needs just a little more tweaking. HĐ (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Hi! Yeah, I would be thrilled to collab with you on the Green Light article. I'm a bit busy with schoolwork but I always try to find gaps in between my studies to fix Lorde's articles whenever I can. I was actually planning to work on Royals and Pure Heroine in the near future so I could nominate them for FA. De88 (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... on the good topic promotion. Well done! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) De88 (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I had mentioned about WP:NOTBROKEN (do not target the New Zealand Music Award as the Aotearoa Music Awards) given the award name when the album was released was the former. This may be subjective but some sentences that you rewrote are rather clunky i.e. Lorde attempted to depart from can be just "Lorde departed from". I'm not sure if "maximalist" is an objective description of the production or a comparative statement to the minimalist of Pure Heroine, so please consider this with care. Melodrama received widespread acclaim from contemporary critics, many of whom lauded Lorde's songwriting and its production I think it's better to include why specifically did critics praise this album, and "Lorde's songwriting and its production" is too general. HĐ (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea about the rule over unbroken link fixes. When I was researching material for this article in 2018, several reviewers and publications noted Melodrama for its maximalist production (1, 2,3, 4). Also, I have been using other featured album articles as a reference to restructure the lead, which in my honest opinion, was a bit too cluttered and clunky. A lead should be designed to offer a simple yet concise summary of the prose. The majority of the leads I have read simply state something like "[X] received positive reviews from music critics, with many praising its production and [y]'s songwriting." It typically never specifies more until the viewer reads the corresponding section in the body. De88 (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what I said, there are some awkward grammatical and misleading statements in the lead. "She originally conceived her second album as a reflection of her disillusionment with fame,..." is misleading because the final concept does document her disillusionment with fame as well as solitude and heartbreak. The only thing she scrapped was the aliens concept, as I mentioned before. "It received gold or platinum certifications in the said countries and the United Kingdom" sounds awkward and could be shortened. Another word could surely be used to replace "said". Also, it is misleading to say she moved away from Joel Little's production when he shares production credits on 2 of the 11 Melodrama tracks. Her decision to expand her artistry was influenced more on her desire to move away from minimalism, which is not mentioned at all in the lead. The current statement is too vague. De88 (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, "maximalist" can be a subjective comparison between Melodrama and Pure Heroine and not necessarily an objective claim. Since the album is produced by Antonoff who is known for dense and pulsing snares, this should be taken with care: is it really a neutral, non-biased fact? "Maximalist" is only mentioned by two of the sources you listed that are reliable (CoS and The Guardian), so I would have to consider that very carefully.

I can agree on a short sentence of The album received widespread critical acclaim but as long as the previous paragraphs discuss the album's production and lyrics

The reviews I read so far don't directly indicate that the album was also about Lorde's disillusionment with fame, as well as her desire to escape from so-called minimalism (she doesn't even consider herself minimalist before), thus making this kind of connection is OR. HĐ (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is the Loud and Quiet source unreliable? Metacritic used the publication's ranking on their best albums of 2019 aggregate list. If Metacritic is used on Wikipedia, then I see no reason why their source can be deemed unreliable. Personally, I see no bias with the word "maximalist" as it was mentioned by reviewers and holds no positive or negative connotation. It is simply an observation critics made. Isn't that what proper research consists of? It observes the difference in sound between Melodrama and its predecessor. I was referring to Lorde talking about her "disillusionment with fame", not critics; either way, the sources I found were not enough to justify changing this. De88 (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, Pretty Much Amazing is also used by Metacritic, but it's an independent source that is created by some self-proclaimed "music nerd". Haven't checked out the Loud and Quite source, but please keep in mind that some sources used in Metacritic are not absolutely reliable and needs prior examination.

Regarding the "maximalist" term, it is a fairly lesser-known term to begin with. I have no opposition to its inclusion though, I have to say beforehand, but I don't see its inclusion as being completely unbiased. (For example, I can say that 1989 was Taylor Swift's first pop album because critics A, B... said so. But the fact was far from that: Swift was never not pop) Probably some critics described its production as maximalist would be a better conveyance. HĐ (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update Care to elaborate on the aliens thing and the conception of the album? My understanding from the NME interview is that the aliens thing was symbolic of Lorde's disillusionment with fame, and I haven't seen any link between that and her post-breakup emotions, HĐ (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This poses another question. How reliable is Metacritic if some of the sources used for their aggregate scores are in fact unreliable? If that is the case, then including their scores on Wikipedia is misleading. I started reading some of her Melodrama interviews and she sort of alludes to this in a 2017 Time interview ("The challenge was finding the intersections between her experiences, as a globe-trotting pop star who’s no longer living in what she calls a “hermetically sealed environment,” her parents’ suburban home, and the fans she knew would be listening. “You have to be honest to be able to speak to people, but what if you’re going through something that not everyone goes through, like becoming famous?” Antonoff asks. “There’s nothing in me that’s like, ‘Oh, being a famous person is hard,’” Lorde says. “Because it’s not. I’m very lucky. Yet I feel the weight of all the people I love who sacrifice things to be close to me. And a lot of them are eventually going to leave.” She sighs. “Which sounds so emo.”). She says fame is not hard yet acknowledges the consequences that come with that territory. This, as well as her breakup and learning how to live by herself after leaving her parents' home shaped the songwriting of the record. De88 (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, news sites like NY Times or Washing Post sometimes use Wikipedia as a source, which ironically is considered unreliable per se, so I think this would be a broader topic that needs to be discussed at WikiProject Albums (but so far, sources like Pretty Much Amazing are best to avoid). I think Loud and Quiet is appropriate, but Genius (which is cited in some parts) is probably a no.

The quote does offer a loose connection to fame, but an indirect connotation should be avoided 'cause it'll be OR. What about something like Initially inspired by her disillusionment with fame? Thanks for citing the interview anyways. I didn't see it in the prose so I was completely unaware of this. HĐ (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember using a source from Pretty Much Amazing on the Green Light article. I checked the publication and it has been recognized by other established publications, but if it needs to be removed, then that is fine. I think that phrase definitely sounds more appropriate than the one currently in place. De88 (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on the 1989 article, the Accolades section has a really neat wikitable. Would it be recommended to do the same for Melodrama? De88 (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! Melodrama received so many accolades that listing them in prose would be messy and hard to follow. HĐ (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lorde, Green Light (Artwork).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun at WP:RSN regarding the website should be count as an unreliable source and should be remove off the ratings template. Please add your comments there if interested. – TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Do not want to update this list?.. Like this--GodNey (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will definitely do this in the future. I was already considering it but I've been working on other Lorde articles at the moment. De88 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Royals by Lorde (music video).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Royals by Lorde (music video).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, De88. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Royals (song) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Going South (book) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems a bit too far off to presume WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Royals by Lorde (music video).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this in your edit didn't make sense: "Written in the key of G major in Mixolydian mode"

Where did you get this from? The statement not only doesn't match with the reference you added, but also contradicts itself. Mixolydian mode is, by definition, neither major nor minor. Also, that source doesn't seem to say anything about tempo as I look. — Smjg (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey De88, you have my revision yesterday and only said that the quotes that I cited "have nothing to do with Lorde's influence". But I just want to tell you that Lorde indeed did cite Taylor Swift as one of her influence, maybe not on her music, but definitely as a person. I don't know if you read the quotes that I cited yet but one quote means Lorde said "Taylor introduced her and brought her to the world of amazing friendships and taught her to be friends with them." And the second quote means Lorde said she looks up to Taylor whenever she struggles at something. She considers Swift as an influence who she looks up to, so that's definitely an influence. I hope that next time if you try to undo my revision, please notice me first and explain thoroughly. Thanks, ADTN1210 (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Artistry section is meant to include anything related to her musical style and influences; the influences are and should be directly related to her artistry and musical evolution. Whether she looks up to her as a person is irrelevant. The quote about "struggling with something" does not actually state she looks up to her for that, she simply remembers her thinking. Regardless, both quotes have nothing to do with influence and if they do, they stretch the definition of what constitutes influence. De88 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solar Power (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Power (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

--LivelyRatification (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lorde - Solar Power (Artwork).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Lorde - Solar Power (Artwork).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 01:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Lorde WikiProject! We are very pleased to have your help with the project. If you have not done so yet, it is strongly recommended that you add all the Lorde pages to your watchlist. If you have any inquiries regarding the project, or any articles relating to Lorde, please direct them to the project's talk page. Alternately, you could also bring up a discussion on the article's own talk page, or message a fellow participant, but we would prefer all participants engaging on the project's own talk page. If you find yourself inactive with the project for an extended period of time, feel free to remove yourself, or just add yourself to the inactive participants section. Thank you and happy editing! Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 05:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lorde

Thank you for quality articles around Lorde, written in collaboration for millions of readers, such as Melodrama World Tour, Foil (song) and The Louvre (song), for patience ("I recall wanting to nominate it since winter 2017"), - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2738 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compare it to disintegration, pornography, in the calf field, juju first and last and always those albums are goth the album of lorde doesn’t resemble anything from the goth genre it has an indie pop feel rather than a goth feel lyrics and music does not resemble it at all just cause a source mentions goth doesn’t make it goth as goth has been misused over the years since its origins and it’s more misused these days as well any goth will say that the album isn’t goth and isn’t consider part of the genre of it Thecure8985 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thecure8985: Why are you posting this on my talk page and not the Talk:Lorde page? I did not add the genre to the article nor the source that stated the album was goth pop. Take it up with the person who added it there. And regardless, the source came from one of the most revered music journalist sites in the world. Just because you think you know a genre, does not mean you get to decide how others perceive it and that includes removing source information. Let the community decide. The works of 1980s "goth" albums do not compare to the works that came much later after them so comparing them is utter nonsense. Mind you, the albums you listed are primarily goth rock albums, not goth pop. Revolutions are always happening in genres. Over time, subgenres are created and popularized. Purists like you are the antithesis of revolution. De88 (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not revolution ask any goth any of them and they will say that album is not goth if you look more into the history and genre and what it stands for and what lyrics and the music it will show that the album is not goth at all there is not goth at all if you want goth pop then video video is the way for that Thecure8985 (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Also the community has decided that too they know what’s goth and what’s not goth you can watch a lot of short videos showing what’s goth music and what’s not Thecure8985 (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thecure8985:Once again, just because you say you think there is no revolution does not make it fact. When I said community, I meant the Wikipedia community. Let them decide what stands as goth pop. I don't care about your recommendations. I wasn't even the one who added that source. You're coming on my page to debate something I never added to the article. It's pretentious music snobs like you who think so narrow-minded that remove SOURCED information simply because they THINK they know something like the back of their hand. Stop sending me messages on here. I have no interest in engaging in this conversation further. Write whatever thoughts you have on this issue on the Talk:Lorde page. De88 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]