Jump to content

Talk:Dancing on My Own

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Dancing On My Own)
Former good article nomineeDancing on My Own was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed

F# major or G major?

[edit]

The key that the published sheet music is in is irrelevant. Those are frequently wrong (sometimes about much more than just the key.) The official version of the song is in F#. Try it out at the piano if you're not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.135.20 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mircrophone. Watch the video. See the picture.

[edit]

I added microphone pole to everything that said she was singing in front of a microphone. Since there is no microphone at all. Sobercool Here2Help 15:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 July 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 as proposed. SSTflyer 16:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Dancing on My Own → Dancing On My Own – "On" isn't a preposition here. She's not dancing on top of something called "My Own", she's dancing on her own. Unreal7 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Support move, provided there are sufficient sources for capitalization.  ONR  (talk)  23:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – There are several song titles like this, like "Love on Top", that apply the same way. Billboard Man (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It generally is, but in this context it's not a stand-alone word, it's part of the term "on top". Unreal7 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On is still a preposition but is part of the multiword expression on my own which itself is a single lexeme here. Capitalising the O in on would emphasise this. —  AjaxSmack  23:14, 4 August 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.

Under this reasoning, you should move Out Here on My Own too. I happen to disagree, so get ready for my Oppose statement if you do — JFG talk 14:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Living on My Own, 'Til I Can Make It on My Own, Standing on My Own Again, Try It on My Own, Out on My Own, etc. — JFG talk 14:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dancing On My Own. 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}}).

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) 23:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dancing on My Own. 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) 06:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know why they bother with block quotes on here if there's going to be mass deletion for copyright violation despite citation without clarifying the ratio.

Even paraphrasing their lines may get the axe so why bother trying. How much can be quoted is never clarified.

If anyone wants to try and wants to go the mod's edit page for the 9 different sources that are now gone and try, have at it. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onan808 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dancing on My Own/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 07:17, 29 January 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

I will review this like I suggested previously but as the article is massive at 133,792 bytes, the review will come in stages and may take up to a week. --K. Peake 07:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]
>>Venue parameter and extraneous categories from infobox that were not properly referenced have been removed, please check Onan808 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
>>>K. Peake If I'm looking for some way to list Sodermalm, Stockholm in the infobox, does it have to be in a more official capacity than this exact quote for reference from The Globe and Mail?

"Patrik Berger, a 38-year-old who has spent his entire life messing around with sound, has other ideas. His studio is in a little house, not much bigger than a shack, in a hidden courtyard off a main drag on the Stockholm island of Sodermalm. There, he brings me over to a Korg Mono/Poly synthesizer along the red-velvet wall of the back room, and starts fiddling with a knob: It was this synth, in this room, that helped him shape the iconic, throbbing bass backbone to Robyn's Grammy-nominated 2010 single Dancing On My Own. The song put him in the spotlight as an in-demand songwriter and producer. "It was one of those songs where people came up to me, talking about how much it mattered," he says." https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/music/how-stockholm-became-a-dominant-force-in-global-popmusic/article37541953/ Onan808 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

>>>Onan808 No, as it does not name the studio. --K. Peake 06:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. YesY Onan808 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
>hlist format has been updated, please check it's been properly input Onan808 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
>>Opening paragraph sentence order updated Onan808 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
>>Opening paragraph order and context revamped again Onan808 (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
>>Wikilink taken off of year as mentioned further below, clears up prior confusion on "excessive hyperlinking" on song's inspiration from Ultravox, etc. Wikilinks added back to artists names and songs but no longer including years released in each link. If this is not what you meant please clarify so I can reverse Onan808 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated, I think to what you're looking for. Can the lead single mention be included or not? Onan808 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have already stated this. Probably change "released first" to "released as the lead single" or something like that. --K. Peake 07:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, please check formatting Onan808 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which version was released as lead now addressed in sentence that's not the lead, please clarify if needing further correction YesY Onan808 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the genres and ballad info being moved, merge that with the sentence about what the song depicts and form a separate sentence from the one about inspiration (altered) YesY Onan808 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The music video shows" → "An accompanying music video was released on May 21, 2010, which shows" with the wikilink YesY
I was referring to when you were targeting to the articles from the series names and their release years. --K. Peake 07:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated, see above Onan808 (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does this not count because it's referencing the Radio 1 tweet? Should I link the tweet instead? https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-52817969 Onan808 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can use the BBC News citation in the article and add the full quote. --K. Peake 07:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Original quote stays, reference added, please note if more is needed Onan808 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going to assume as I haven't gotten through to Kyle conclusion on this edit page that we'll be waiting until the resubmission of the entire article for the assessment on this concluding para re: Calum. Just putting this response on the record now to note its been seen. Onan808 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration

[edit]

Heavy revamp of entire section to heavily condense quotes, move around segments and improve MOS:QUOTE issues- much of below prior edit instruction likely no longer relevant Onan808 (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retitle to Background and inspiration >> Two sections combined and background moved to Body Talk Pt. 1, keeping title?
Keeping current Inspiration title unless you'd like reverted Onan808 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the first sentence is backed up by [1]; are you sure you haven't linked to the wrong page of the article? >>Deleted
  • Target indie to Independent music >>Deleted, see above
  • Target synthpop to Synth-pop >>Deleted, see above
  • "Robyn in Sweden" → "studio album Robyn across Sweden" >>Deleted, see above
  • "and toured the record" → "and toured for the album" >>Deleted
  • Target singles to Single (music) >>Deleted
  • "she recounted her" → "the singer recounted her" >>Deleted
  • "The Kick Inside, Janet Jackson's" → "The Kick Inside and Janet Jackson's" >>Deleted
  • The Klas Åhlund part is not mentioned by [5] and the ref says they had been together for nearly six years not eight
>>Correct ref. added, date of dating added Onan808 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct wikilink fixed YesY Onan808 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "broken heart," she" → "broken heart", she" YesY
  • Target people watching to People-watching YesY
  • Add a comma after Stockholm YesY
  • Are you sure the club names should be in single speech marks? >>There's the clubs, then the club nights they host which are in the single speech marks. If you think they should be double let me know. Also let me know about italics on club names
Club names no longer italicized, club nights titles at said clubs put in single speech marks instead. Please clarify if incorrect Onan808 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "respectively (among others)." → "respectively, among others." YesY
  • "she loved, including" → "Robyn loved, including" YesY
  • Add release years of the songs mentioned in brackets >>Added but again not sure if added correctly, please review otherwise
>>What's the general rule? Not the artist but the song? Vice versa? So just include the years for the songs and don't wikilink to any of those listed? Will get rid of those and the rest in that list. Where else should that be applied to in the article? Onan808 (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onan808 To be more specific, I was referring to targeting here I guess even though I put wikilink; you should have wikilinked the artists and the songs, but the release years should be kept while not targeted to the songs themselves. --K. Peake 07:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified and corrected per opening paragraph Onan808 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the song's narrative: "that god-awful" → "the song's narrative of "the god-awful" >>updated reference now is correct in referring to "that god-awful" YesY
  • "at the club."" → "at a club"." per MOS:QUOTE and that is what the actual quote says; invoke [18] here like you should already have done
  • The quote, unless the new one says otherwise, said "a club" not "the club", plus the MOS means punctuation being inside quotation marks when it's not a full sentence. --K. Peake 22:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC) YesY[reply]
  • "she noticed that "something was changing, especially in America...dance is the" → "she noticed that "something is changing", especially in America, saying dance is "the" with the target, to accurately quote the source YesY
  • The "many in her generation" part is not mentioned by [12] and the rest says "to feel a part of something bigger than yourself". >>updated reference to accurately reflect quote
  • The quote from [12] is out of order; the two sentences after the first one come before it in the actual text, probably use [...] after sentence one to fix this issue >>see above
Not sure if you're still referring to reference [12] and surrounding material to fix Onan808 (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to when you had like five refs at the end of one sentence. --K. Peake 07:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onan808 I have made further comments below. --K. Peake 11:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creation

[edit]
  • None of the first para is sourced by [17], even Seinabo Sey's part
"red velvet" is from The Globe and Mail reference at the end of the blockquote. Seinabo reference from first Billboard article is now updated. First para is from last two references listed at end of entire section - second para also includes quotes from the same articles (2nd article at Billboard, not the Seinabo Sey one) and BBC. Do you want both repeated for each paragraph? Onan808 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by approximately December," → "by approximately December 2009,"
Re-tooled entire opener on this, same question on references as above applies. Onan808 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release

[edit]

>>Completely retooled this to move sections from this and put them elsewhere in article as they weren't as relevant to the topic at hand. What remained I felt was too short to justify having its own section so I've condensed it with the music video section but if you think it still should have its own/be expanded/etc. let me know.Onan808 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Entire section removed: Parts deleted or moved to different sections where more relevant. Onan808 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: below remaining portion of section - putting these comments here for the record for other users.: Multiple dead links on release history, formats, and countries, but especially when the track was put to radio adds in the U.S. which numerous searches I have come up empty on - a lot of dead links given the time that's elapsed and no archiving of pages from when this article was first created. I have deleted all mention of the above including the entire release format section later in this article to save space and because references of when they were first released on each specific format should suffice unless an editor/mod feels otherwise. Onan808 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

Final comments and verdict

[edit]
  • I still have a lot of sections to go over, but I am putting this article  On hold per the nominator's request, until they wish for me to continue the review. --K. Peake 18:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onan808 Sorry, but I am going to have to ✗ Fail this article. The reason is because it is simply too far from meeting the GA criteria despite being so large; I would be willing to leave onhold for a while with an article being this in depth so you could go over the many large sections in a good amount of time, but the amount of original research here is simply too much. This is not just an initial issue; I noticed this when reviewing all of the first four sections, plus the article contains unreliable sources like 19, 26, 89 and 90. Take a look at WP:RSPYT to understand that videos from unverified accounts on the platform are considered unreliable, also despite the failure I will congratulate you on expanding this article heavily and I hope you can improve the prominent issues even though it will take quite a while. --K. Peake 15:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z100 Interview Quotes: Need replaced context for second GA review

[edit]

Trying to revise several quotes in this article from YouTube clips from her Z100 interview in 2011 with JJ Kincaid that give vital context (especially in Lyrics section). The quotes were deemed "original research" in first attempted Good Article review by Kyle Peake and there's been incredible difficulty replicating this context from other sources. If anyone's able to find an official source that has the Z100 interview transcript from 2011 or a workaround to include similar context from that interview without using YouTube as a source please message me personally or include with a note on its edit and we'll discuss whether it would work. Please honor request to forgo GA nomination until this is accomplished. Onan808 (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not describe the long quote as "original research", and I don't think Kyle Peake said that about this particular quote, which is adequately cited. Kyle was talking about the whole article in general.[1]
I think the quote is mostly fluff, unimportant stuff. The article is extremely large, with too much detail in every section. Removing all or most of this quote would help get the size under control. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onan808 I apologize for any misunderstanding or stress I have caused you. Also, the above user is correct, I was not talking about the YouTube link you referred to here; there is the issue of areas where you cite text source(s) solely but it does not back up what is written. That was the original research I mentioned. --K. Peake 20:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted and my apologies for perceived "vandalism" on this talk page by Binksternet for accidental deletion which was also not intentional. My prior point to Binksternet on my questioning of the quote being "fluff" (wildly subjective) still stands in addition the "size" of the supposedly "important" articles Binksternet thought passed muster under their prior edits they've already done "non-fluffy" work on but we're not there yet. Working on edits sporadically in the original section you mentioned above over the course of the next few hours.Onan808 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Size at 135k

[edit]

Regarding the size of the article, I looked at a sampling of song articles that have achieved WP:FA status, to see how big they are, and only a very few are larger than this one, which is currently 135k of code. Below is a list of the FA songs I looked at, with their current sizes.

Arguably, the Rihanna and Beyoncé songs at the top of the list could be trimmed back. But a lot of their code size comes from the massive number of references, and all the lists, charts and tables. If you look only at "readable prose" size, things look pretty different.

Readable prose size, measured with DYK check

The point of all this is that I think this article is too large for its topic. It needs pruning for concision. Very influential, world-changing songs such as "Like a Rolling Stone", "Imagine" and "Smells Like Teen Spirit" have been described fully to the reader in much smaller format. This song was big in its own way, clearly Robyn's biggest hit, but not so world-changing or globally influential. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it

[edit]

After I'm done addressing Kyle Peake's edits have at it with the cuts yourself. Prune away since that's clearly your desire and we'll debate each point one by one that you decide to cut on its merits. Other than latter portions of the Impact section which I'll concede unless you're conducting the review for a GA article submission I've done the months of research on content and I'm not wasting my time bowing to the whims of a random user/mod that decides to waltz in and insinuates the bulk of the material is frivolous or a waste of the users time without any specifics. Do the work yourself like I've done - let it be known for the record that this article was barely bare-boned for almost a decade before the majority of what's here. As for the 'lists, charts, and tables' I have no idea what you're referring to other than countries charting which I never contributed to. Other than that I'm ready for the debate on each and every point so we can have at it. Whether or not the song was globally influential is up for debate and we clearly disagree. I never remotely claimed the song was more influential than the three you concluded with but the insinuation is really appreciated. Just one more sign to me you're not coming to this process in good faith which isn't remotely reassuring. Onan808 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are angry. It's clear that you have worked hard on this article, and it's much better because of your work. But at some point the article should have been considered thorough enough for the reader to understand the topic, and that point has passed. The article is now too long for most readers. I'm not here to make you happy; I'm here to speak up for the reader.
Since it contains twice as much reading material as the very large article about Diamonds (Rihanna song), a good starting goal would be to cut the reading material in half, to get the "readable prose" size down to half of what it is now. Your offer to fight over every proposed reduction is worrisome. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. The patronizing and infantilizing is incredibly unprofessional, not to mention, again, a waste of my time and yours. I'm surprised you have the standing you do on this website. This never was a fight and you don't get to wash your hands of what you originally insinuated, including your new point that I don't care about the reader. Again, I'll leave this to you or another user to do heavy cuts which I can address point by point. Or is that not how editing on this service works as it has for the numerous other articles you've clearly worked on? I'm going to continuing working on Kyle Peake's edits and then I'll leave it to someone else for massive cuts or a GA submission.Onan808 (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not done anything to deserve your hostility. I did not "insinuate" anything; I said very explicitly that the article is too long. Your total opposition to good-faith advice shows problems with article ownership, especially your pugilistic stance about debating "each and every point" despite no points having been suggested yet. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you're giving has not been in good faith either, but regardless, no user "owns" any article and can be banned outright for abuse of other users/mods or the process - you and I both know that. I'm not ruling out any cuts being made. I never have and I've addressed that already. Many significant ones are warranted. We'll both clearly wait for those points to actually specifically be made by either yourself or another user. In the meantime I'm going to continue working on the other parts of the article re: Kyle Peake's edits, etc.Onan808 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article keeps climbing upward in size. It's now 57,074 characters of readable prose, more than twice as much as featured article "Smells Like Teen Spirit". I don't understand the need to keep slapping more clay onto the sculpture which is already bloated. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I realize this message was left for the general public for the record for cuts from anyone, since it seems to be just me making any serious attempt on editing here I'll address this directly. I don't understand the need to swoop in with criticism that's not remotely constructive every few weeks when I'm addressing each of Kyle Peake's points one by one under each category if you bothered looking at the updates. This is the exact passive aggressive tack I brought up earlier that helps absolutely no one which you professed ignorance to earlier. This article is no longer under GA nominee review and thus there is not some imposed time limit on your vague request unless there's something I'm missing regarding this process. Cuts are needed, as was already stated. I personally am getting through other edit questions. In the meantime, anyone including yourself is free to make them. Onan808 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be impolite for me to greatly reduce the article at the same time you are building it larger. I was hoping you yourself would make some cuts, or at least propose some cuts. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bridge in your attempts to conduct this entire process 'politely' was burned a long time ago when you ruined my experience on this website. Regardless, if it works for you, as again, I've already stated, once I'm finished with the edits from Kyle Peake (who knows how to give constructive criticism) then attempt some condensing I'll be turning the article over to you make the majority of them as I find the entire process of what will go and what will stay wildly subjective and arbitrary and I won't bother partaking in it, nor GA resubmission. Any attempts to reason on my end of what should go or stay will be met by ridiculous protests on your end of article ownership in abuse of your power editing on this website no matter the defense so again, that's not worth my time or energy. While I finish what I have left to do if there's a timeframe of yours I apparently need to meet please let me know. Onan808 (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The burning bridge metaphor seems like hyperbolic phrasing for dramatic effect. I have never done anything here to deserve your ire. I have made a few small edits to the article, and I have said repeatedly here on the talk page that the article is too large, which I have shown above to be objectively true, comparing it to other songs that have reached Featured Article status. If your "experience on this website" can be "ruined" by someone politely suggesting improvements on the talk page, then the problem is not external to you.
Specific suggestions I have for reduction of the article's massive size are: removing long block quotes, trimming the inspiration section and the creation section and reworking their ideas into the composition section, reducing the lyrics section, reducing the music video section, reducing the performance section (especially television appearances), reworking the impact section into a smaller influence and legacy evaluation, reducing the poptimism section to one paragraph within that, reducing the outsiders section to one paragraph within that, and trimming the cover versions of less notable stuff. I realize I'm proposing a lot of pruning, but the article needs it to satisfy the GA requirement for clear and concise prose. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your flippant comments about my contributions being "fluff", "bloated", and "slapping more clay" on it without any context (I may be paraphrasing the exact wording with the first), and the implication I thought this song was more influential than any of the others you listed were what I was referring to. Your gaslighting subsequently as if those comments never happened is objectively external to me and it is what has drawn my response. It's not productive or professional. Having gotten that out of the way I'll do what I can, reach out to Kyle about the possibility of evaluating by section again prior to any GA review and then turn it over to you. Onan808 (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said her Z100 quote "is mostly fluff, unimportant stuff." I did not make an implication that your contributions were fluff; I was talking about Robyn's words. What I said that had a direct bearing on your contributions was that the article was "extremely large, with too much detail in every section." We both know your extensive additions have caused this situation. I was certainly hoping to communicate my concern about the article's size to you, to cause you to rethink your strategy, to bring you to an understanding about how your style of contributing must change, to convey an urgency that the article size must be trimmed back. I am not pretending otherwise.
To reiterate: I want you to stop expanding the article, and to start reducing it. If you can't reduce it, then just stop expanding it.
We can celebrate the fact that the article is much more informative than it was before you expanded it. But some compromise should be reached relative to reader attention span. At Wikipedia:Article size we are instructed that reader attention span is a key factor in determining whether an article is too large. An article of 10,000 words is considered the maximum for readers to digest in one sitting. "Dancing on My Own" is currently at 10,959 words, including the long quotes. So it is objectively larger than the recommended maximum. And it's not a critically important topic such as the Moon landing (7700 words) or the whole Universe (9200 words). It's just a song, part of the pop culture division of music releases, with smaller attention spans expected from the readers. The gigantic hit song Halo (Beyoncé song) is a Featured Article and it only uses 4500 words. My goal is reduce this article's prose by half. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The additions to the article here since your last post was to address the other editor's concerns and the remaining sections we'd both discussed only being cut and not added to anyways - this is in the logs above you which you apparently didn't bother reading. The miscommunication is on you as an editor with your opening salvo for what I took as an implication it was my article contributions and not Robyn's quote because you didn't deliver it properly to start with. Also, again, your implication I think this pop song is more important than the moon landing simply by virtue of the amount of material I've put in this article is an absurd correlation. I never said that nor did I imply it. The amount of material I have here I never suggested I wasn't willing to reduce significantly. Given that this is just a silly pop song after all and not the 'moon landing', the five-alarm fire I'm inferencing from your response in terms of how long it will take me to reduce this material is ironic. For the fourth time, if there's a timeline of yours I need to meet, clarify it. Onan808 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The GA nomination failed. Your continued pursuit of it, after Kyle closed it as a failed nomination, is quixotic. There's no future in it; no good reason why your expansion work should continue. The article cannot meet the GA requirement of concision until it is reduced. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for another GA nomination for this article as I've already said twice, which again, you've ignored. Are you? For the fifth time, do you have a timeline for me or not? They were good points he brought up in general and my addressing them wasn't in pursuit of him approving another nomination. The information now included based on those points was always meant to precede further reductions in other areas, which I also have mentioned several times and you've ignored. I'll be getting back to the article in about a week or two unless I hear otherwise from you or someone else on here. Onan808 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big pruning

[edit]

Okay, I removed a lot of text to bring the article into compliance with GA criteria for concise prose. The word count was reduced from more than ten thousand words down to 6,357 words. There are no more blockquotes, with some of these getting reworked as much smaller regular quotes. The section about Robyn's career is removed. I added a small amount of stuff to emphasize the fact that the song has been called a gay anthem, which was previously hinted at but not made explicit. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have some notes that stick out for me immediately in what I feel was an incredibly poor prune job overall. I'd be much more frank and give many more points but won't given what's transpired as indicated earlier in the Talk page. Instead, here are just my immediate points below for the record for other users and not for you (unless you decide to take it up) that they can consider (or not) so you can deal with them (not me - my patience is gone with you frankly) if they decide to pursue it.
There is now no follow-up on the majority of the television shows, films, or prominent live performances in the article itself that are mentioned in the opener. Another user had made a point much earlier in this process regarding this exact edit that was fixed and now with this mass cut, it has now not only been reverted to the original problem but it's much worse. Either references would be needed for the shows, etc. in the lead or a follow-up in the article itself. Otherwise they need to be cut in the lead as well. The onus for finding those links again should fall to the editor that insisted on the cut itself or they can cut all mention in the lead of any media the track was in whatsoever (which makes no sense to me, but again, I'm not the one that made those cuts).
Initial critical reception for the track was not unanimous praise as indicated in the Stylus' The Singles Jukebox quotes (for Robyn, not Callum) from several of its staff writers originally posted in the first Reception section (meanwhile, is the second "reception" section getting a new title to differentiate it or not?) that was cut. The language in the lead was changed to "polarized" to accurately reflect the differing opinions but there's now no contrasting info from that outlet to reflect it in the article section itself.
Of the portions of the former blockquotes that have enough relevance to include in some context here that were eliminated completely I'd make the argument should be included in some short context include Berger's quote in The Globe and Mail of his fellow producers being (I'm paraphrasing) "angry that he produced it the way he did...raw and gritty" and the line from Robyn's interview with Z100 on the lines not being specific to relate to her listeners more. Onan808 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In March I pruned the article down to 6,357 words, but over the next three months Onan808 has expanded it back up to 7,278 words. It's too much. (Again, Featured Article "Halo" uses about 4500 words.) Also, the prose style introduced by Onon808 is terribly recursive, excessively referring back to previous facts, and dropping lengthy descriptions of new facts into the middle of an ongoing thought, making the article difficult to read. The writing is opaque and contorted. This cannot stand. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You got rid of the links in the body to what's mentioned in the opener of its inclusion on various media which Kyle Peake brought up in his mass edit and from several other commenters. Critique of prose is irrelevant from my standpoint from an editor making entire cuts of specific references which has been criticized from multiple registered members to this page (and going against Wiki policy) but I obviously have no control of what you decide to cut so be my guest. Your mention of the new info being included however is appreciated, despite your delivery. Given your tone, I'll just go out on a limb here and point out that unless you want to ban me outright from this page I'm not committing vandalism and it's not under formal review so I'm not going anywhere.Onan808 (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My big pruning job was not "criticized" by "multiple registered members"; it was criticized by you alone.
Your writing style has to change. You can't keep prying open the prose to insert new thoughts, such that the target sentence becomes a mess of clauses going in different directions. It's a horrible experience for the reader.
Your contributions must aim for concision. If you want to add something you should be removing something else to make room. Keep each paragraph focused on developing one idea. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph in the opener has a list of live performances the majority of which do not any longer have corresponding urls in the body under performances because you got rid of them in the mass overhaul and they don't correspond with what is in the majority of the body of other live performances. That is mentioned by corrections that were made by at least two other users unless I need to hold your hand to go back through the logs together. Whether my prose is unnecessary is subjective but you don't get to make up your own facts. That you made a mistake so glaring means many coming here to make corrections in other areas may not take your editing here seriously. I didn't a long time ago but I nor anyone else unfortunately has the luxury of asking for someone else working for Wiki to commandeer this page instead.Onan808 (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 February 2024

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Participants showed that MOS:CT calls for the "on" to be lowercased in these titles; no policy basis was provided to counteract that. The opposition largely centered on the argument that a lowercased "on" would imply that the sentence's subject was physically on top of the object of the prepositional phrase; this argument was effectively refuted in the discussion, leading me to find a consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This last one was added after the RM discussion start, but it's just like the others.

– Most titles with "on My Own" treat "on" as a preposition, lowercase, which seems correct, but strangely was not the interpretation on this article back in 2016, in a thinly attended RM. Now this one is being used as a precedent at Talk:Always On the Run (Isaak song)#Requested move 18 February 2024; we should fix it instead, along with the few others like it. Dicklyon (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In some of these, such as "Barbara on Her Own", "Life on Your Own", and "Now That I'm On My Own, I think the phrase in question is not functioning as an adverb. (In those cases it is not modifying a verb and it is also not modifying an adjective or an adverb, as discussed in that source.) I may need some of those meds myself. Even if we can figure out the name of the type of phrase that it is, I don't think that necessarily means the preposition it begins with should be uppercased. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, not all adverbs. But with dance, dancing, and make it they are. Dicklyon (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, if you're "on meds", are you physically sitting on top of those meds? I don't think so. I think the meds are affecting your state of being, like if you were experiencing the state of being "on your own" (or at least "on your own supply"). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On is a preposition in this case. The lyric is: I'm always on the run, run, run, run[2]. Analysing this: I (subject) am (verb) always (adverb) on (preposition) the run (object, noun phrase with definite article). See also Cambridge and Mirriam-Webster definitions and examples of when on acts as either a preposition, adverb or adjective.
Dancing On My Own may initially appear to be an exception but the lyric is I keep dancing on my own, with keep being the verb[3][4] and dancing, an adverb. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS My own is the subject/noun phrase where my is a determiner and own is a pronoun. On, as a preposition, can be used in several ways per the dictionary sources provided. Not all are positional (in contact with) as in on my desk or on top of. Amongst other uses as a preposition, it can indicate a condition or process being experience - eg on duty, on holiday, on fire and, in this case, on my own. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons stated by Randy Kryr and Amakuru. It doesn't make sense if it were a 'regular' preposition and therefore lowercase. I understand the guidelines don't include this case as some sort of exception, but perhaps that's what needs to be thinking about instead of having several concurrent move discussions about the same thing (especially when the implications reach further to other situations as well). Grk1011 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard of a 'regular' preposition. Is that a thing, or just something you made up? It would be good to understand how this applies to those "other situations" you mention, as well. Dicklyon (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask yourself why the On in "Moving On Up" is not subject to MOS:CT, and you'll be on the road to understanding the rationale here. You could argue full well that it's a regular preposition, but like the one in "Dancing On My Own", it simply isn't. It's a preposition forming part of a wider phrase, and to render it in lowercase is simply a misparsing of the sentence, in both instances.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: MOS:CT is clear on this. Short prepositions in titles of works are not to be capitalized unless part of a compound preposition like "Out of" or a phrasal verb such as "Putting On". "on My Own" belongs to neither exception category, so there is no MOS-based argument for the On to be capitalized. Furthermore, adding an exception for phrasal adjectives or adverbs to MOS:CT is ill-advised, for what is a prepositional phrase but a phrasal adjective or adverb? One could argue that all prepositional phrases are "indivisible multiword phrases." One may as well remove prepositions from being downcased altogether with this line of reasoning. So it's a poor proposal that will do nothing but introduce a grey area into a presently black-and-white rule. Bensci54 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Some follow-up discussion

[edit]
  • @Amakuru: The "on" in "Moving On Up" is subject to MOS:CT, but it is not a preposition in that usage. It is a particle of the phrasal verb "Moving On", and MOS:CT says it should be capitalized. "Moving On" is like "Give Up" or "Puttin' On", which are examples given in MOS:CT. It is obviously not a preposition when used in "Moving On", because it is coming after, rather than before, the other word that it is attached to. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's a preposition. Just because it's part of a phrasal verb doesn't mean it suddenly becomes not one, in exactly the same way as the "on" in on my own is still a preposition despite being part of a sort of adverb idiom type thing. And yes, I know MOS:CT explicitly says it should be capitalised. My only point is that it should also explicitly say the preposition in a defined idiom such as On My Own is capitalised. It makes no sense to include one but not the other, but I guess adhering to the letter of the MOS is more important to some people in this chat than actually thinking about why a preposition is downcased in the first place.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cambridge Dictonary (definition B2) says "on" is an adverb in "Could you switch on the radio?". Isn't "move on" like "switch on", and thus using "on" as an adverb rather than a preposition? It also says it's an adverb in "You go on and I'll meet you at the lake." (Struck out one sentence above that I'm not confident about.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I mentioned above, SMcCandlish made a brief attempt to codify this properly in 2016,[5] but was quickly reverted. What an absolute pity, because it was far far better the other way.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit by SMcCandlish looks like it was just trying to clarify something about compound prepositions. I haven't seen anyone argue that "dancing on my own" or "moving on up" involves a compound preposition. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and we have clearer material on that in another line-item now, so the edit from back when would not longer be useful today.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what functions these words are performing is subject to some debate even in the professional literature, and some misc. Wikipedians, mostly without linguistics backgrounds, arguing amongst themselves isn't magically going to resolve that. All of our P&G apply by default; a claim that something should be an exception is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, and we do not have that here. Treat a word that is arguably a preposition as a preposition unless there is an overwhelmingly consistent view in reliable sources on English grammar that it's serving some other function.

    "Moving On Up" can be interpreted as the phrasal verb "moving on" (going forward/past something) followed by "up" serving in a role that some would classify as an adverb and some as a determiner lacking an explicitly declared, "understood" referent, but essentially taking the object role in the overall constuction (a role usually filled by a noun, noun phrase, or pronoun), i.e. with "up" basically serving as a destination for "on", a "location", if you will, of an improved status. More plausibly, the phrase can also be differently interpreted as the simple verb "moving" followed by the compound preposition "on up" (a construction common in Southern and African-American English, whence this particular phrase, the title of the theme song to The Jeffersons, with a synergistic implication of progress or advancement), with an unspecified "understood" object of some better destination, namely again a higher social status in the Jeffersons' case. Either way, the "On" gets capitalized as part of a phrasal verb, or as the start of a compound preposition. If we had different rules for those cases, then we'd have a new argument to go through.

    "Dancing on My Own", though, is both structurally and meaningfully equivalent to Billy Idol's "Dancing with Myself" (and someone else's hypothetical song "Dancing by Myself") other than that "my self" has become an orthographically fused compound while my own has not. No one would [sensibly] argue that "with" or "by" isn't serving a prepositional function in those. "On" is, too, just a metaphorical one. If I say "I'm in the doldrums" I metaphorically mean I'm experiencing a lack of productivity, inspiration, activity, etc.; not that I'm literally in (within, inside of, enclosed by) something (nor, for that matter, that the something is an unwanted windless calm at sea that had stranded me for the time being). Even "with" and "by" aren't serving a literal function here; no one can actually be with (alongside, accompanying) or by (beside, next to) oneself. It's pure accident that one of these phrases has "on" in it and others have "with" or "by". Lots of English idioms are this way, and conventionalized to a broad extent between the Early Modern and Modern English phases from inconsistent dialectal variations that had conflicting prepositions. You can see a lot of that kind of variation in Shakespeare and the King James Bible (e.g. "such stuff as dreams are made on" instead of "... made of").

    If we had a song title of, say, "Dancing On into the Sunset", then we'd have a simple verb followed by a colloquial compound preposition of "on into", or a phrasal verb of "dancing on" followed by a one-word preposition "into"; they don't even have quite identical interpretations (we'd probably have to examine the lyrics to be sure which was intended). Either way, that construction is very different from "Dancing on My Own", which is simply verb preposition noun phrase (own as noun modified by pronoun determiner). That "own" in this sense (usually modified by "my", "your", or some other pronoun, or a proper name as in "Jane's own") is serving as a noun can be confirmed with The American Heritage Dictionary and various other such works. When it modifies a stand-alone noun, then pronoun/name own is adjectival, as in "sleeping in your own bed". Contrast that with "sleeping on your own" (V Pr NP), where again the "on" isn't conveying a literal meaning of "on top of". No one, though, would argue that "sleeping on" in this sense is a phrasal verb (it could be in, e.g., "sleeping on until noon") or that "on" otherwise isn't a preposition here; it's just not one conveying its most common meaning, as "on" also isn't in "dancing on my own". Yet "sleeping on your own" and "dancing on my own" are structurally equivalent phrases, right down the role and form of every single element in them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dancing_on_My_Own&oldid=1211329537"