Talk:Levitating (song)

Funk and pop (Showcased as pop-funk)

LOVI33 02:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33, I hope you've got Good article status on your radar! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, definitely! LOVI33 17:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33, Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gagaluv1 please stop removing the music video credits. Your only arguments for not including the credits are "an unnecessary detail that few would be interested in, it's not standard to put in articles, and it takes up a large part of an already very large article." Firstly, you can never predict was users would want to read, and it is always good to have lots of information. Just because it isn't in a lot of articles, doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Finally, yes it is a large article, but it doesn't look like we will need to split it any time soon. As the article is pretty much finished besides a commercial performance section, we can probably assume it wont need to split it. At the end, it is sourced information and there really isn't any good reason to remove it. LOVI33 23:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely rare to see that level of detail for music video credits, and doesn't seem that relevant, since the only source is the description of a YouTube video. It feels unnecessary and bloated, I don't see what having music video credits in the article ads, except more space for people to scroll by.Gagaluv1 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gagaluv1, I don't really see a problem with having a lot of detail in the section, and as I said earlier, you can never assume what people want to read, and added information is never a bad thing. Here is another source for The Blessed Madonna's remix video, but the sources used at the moment are published by Lipa herself, so they seem the most reliable. LOVI33 00:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see a problem with them. They’re more information, isn’t Wikipedia an encyclopedia? I’ve added MV credits before, they’re actually really helpful. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it warrants inclusion in this encyclopedia. I personally doesn't really find the necessity of this excessive credits. Okay, we need to know who is the director, photographer, but do we really need to know all these skaters cameos. I don't think so. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Given the amount of detail, this article needs re-organising into different sections for the remixes much like

Say So (Doja Cat song) ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 00:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with the point made by Lil-unique1 above. As someone who often reads this article, I don't find the current structure easy to navigate. Also agree that music video credits should be cut down to the director, producer, and maybe the choreographer. The credit list is verifiable, but not notable, and as such giving it such hefty coverage is undue.--NØ 04:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved editor notified from the WikiProject. This is way too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Much in the same way it would be inappropriate to transcribe the entire end credits of a movie, video game, or television show. Trim it way back. People can watch the video itself for the full thing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should be trimmed to important credits i.e. director, 1AD, editor etc, kind of like what is on Cardigan (song)#Music video credits. No need to include irrelevant cameos unless they are notable people. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a 3rd party to the conflict, I'm surprised this even needed to be discussed. That is was too much info about the video. It is monstrous. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LOVI33: Hey, I note the RIAA cert as solo version at this edition considering these reasons:

1. RIAA has the examples which are certified as different version: Hawái remix by Maluma and The Weeknd (6x Plat Latin) , and Hawái original version (14x Plat Latin), see Hawái (song).
2. The note "solo version" makes it easier for readers to clarify that the award is not certified for the DaBaby remix.

I think there are two solutions: adding the note or separate certs of the remix version. Regards. :)

-- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrandNew Jim Zhang. Before I give my reasoning on why it isn't necessary to specify which version was certified, I would just like to mention that the Danish, Italian, Norwegian and British certifications are also credited to the solo version of "Levitating". So the reason it isn't necessary to include the version is that both the DaBaby Remix and original are being promoted as the same single. This can been seen as all of the live promotion (besides the Grammmys) are for the original and the remix is the same as the original, just DaBaby adds a new verse. The original was a single for adult contemporary radio and the remix was a single for top 40, which is a good marketing strategy. Unlike "Hawái", the version with the Weeknd is credited as a "Remix" whereas with this song it is just credited as "Levitating featuring DaBaby". It was never called a remix by Lipa or her record label, further proving why they are being promoted at the same song. As for certifications, according to the RIAA requirements (which is also used by many other markets), edited versions of songs are combined for certifications, which is 100% what has happened here. As for the separate table idea, each version has different certifications which are obviously combined sales which again, just takes up unnecessary space. If we start crediting which version for charts and certifications, a lot of unnecessary space gets taken up. About half of the charts are credited to the original version and we have already tried the note and separate table previously, which didn't work. Overall, they are the same song. It is unnecessary to specify. I hope this clears song things up. LOVI33 20:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get it and thank you for the response! Like — BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the charts topic there should be a different part with levitating solo original version chart peaks. Aridabestbro (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aridabestbro please see my response above about the RIAA certification. Long story short, the peaks are combined for all versions of "Levitating" and the two versions are being promoted as the same single so there really isn't a need to specify. Also just to note, excluding when the solo version charted as an album track, each chart has credited either the solo or DaBaby version, not both. LOVI33 22:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we split the article, then merged the two articles, and now there's a tag suggesting a split because the article's too long?

---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SIZESPLIT, it should be split soon. However, there are ways to lower the readable prose size without splitting right away, such as rethinking the amount of detail there needs to be. For example, does #Controversy need two full paragraphs with three- to four-sentence quotes when all of this happened a week ago? Does #Commercial performance need to be detailed with specific peaks instead of detailing two or three and adding "the song additionally charged in x, y and z", especially knowing that the exact same information can be found in #Charts? Do we need to include the details of the camera used to shoot the cover art for the remix in #Release and promotion? Giving the article a good copyedit and getting rid of information that isn't crucial to the readers' understanding of the subject as a whole (such as what I just detailed above) should lower the readable prose size a lot, which should save us from splitting the article anytime soon. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see the claim being made here yet but I have seen it being made on the DaBaby and DaBaby discography pages so I would like to clarify some things about what happens when Billboard changes how a song is credited (due to a remix). The change in credit looks retroactive, but it is actually not. This is a bug with their website. Now, Billboard's rules state that whichever version of the song accounts for the majority (over 50%) of a song's activity gets credited. However, there is a bug that results in whichever version is currently credited being credited for every week, regardless of which version actually charted at the time. Just look at the fact that the DaBaby remix could be seen on the Bubbling Under chart for the week of June 29, 2020, when viewed in May 2021 while DaBaby was credited on most charts despite the version with him on it not even existing at the time. The Blessed Madonna version actually charted that week. Even now the solo version appears (with the DaBaby cover art oddly enough) when you look at it now. Billboard themselves noted that for historical purposes whichever version was credited the week a song peaks counts towards the artists' discographies even if the version is not the same version accounting for the majority of activity in the following weeks. (See this article). CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started to read this article, then noticed how long it was. It seems at times far too detailed and more like a detailed biography of a song rather than an encyclopedic entry. I checked the article size on XTools and can see it's 6,679 words in 36 sections. For contrast,

What makes Yesterday or Hello good examples of well-written articles? In fact, Yesterday is a former featured article that was demoted because, among other things, the "Article seems a bit short, considering the popularity of the song".

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 06:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]