Talk:Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accusation of plagiarism or copyright infringement[edit]

I open the debate because they are removing my information about the plagiarism or copyright infringement of the Bizarrap song. Here.. Here.. --GeogieTax (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So... GeogieTax, as the onus is on you to obtain a consensus for inclusion, you could start providing arguments (other than "it's verifiable") for why the content is relevant enough to be included. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you expose your disagreement with my edit on the talk page?GeogieTax (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no point in trying to reason with you on that issue, the subject of alleged "plagiarism" is pretty irrelevant to the article and doesn't add anything. You are involved in an edit war where you are going to end up blocked for not giving valid reasons to keep that section on the page. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
state your arguments for removal of referenced content in the discussion. GeogieTax (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons and that of others are simple, the content is irrelevant, there are no legal movements yet and everything is just a controversy of the showbiz without major importance, there is no lawsuit or anything that makes it stand out. Thanks AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring that there are 11 references and highly prestigious media. GeogieTax (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what does that have to do with the topic?
The text of the alleged "plagiarism" is irrelevant to the article because there is nothing serious, no actions or judicial movements, absolutely nothing that can support a valid reason why that text should be kept there, even other collaborators have already explained it to you but you still do not pay attention, the next time I will notify superiors. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they don't believe in my contribution, because they only undo it!. GeogieTax (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really an argument that will persuade others to include the disputed content. Please try again. M.Bitton (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, I'm not saying anything else, I'm irrelevant on this page GeogieTax (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tengo otras cosas que hacer GeogieTax (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike the rest of us, obviously. M.Bitton (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you answer me if you recently deleted my chat from your PD
    Pasa la página GeogieTax (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want to the others to see what you wrote, but since you insist, here it is.
    @ToBeFree: please have a look at the above responses. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    it's ok go debate with them don't answer me ignore me. 👍🏻 GeogieTax (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I also would say the information doesn't belong, per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and especially WP:RS - I would only ever cite two of the presented sources, one of them (Marca) not for controversial information (nor as a main source in general); the other (CNN Español) not only points out that this 'controversy' is far less talked-about than other things (e.g. Pique and Clara), but also says that it's BS attention-seeking for a variety of reasons. Perhaps a small mention of that would be fine, but until more not-spam sources discuss it, there is policy (and logic) that say it's unreasonable to include it, let alone allow as much waffle as there was. Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No connection to Spotify[edit]

It should be linked, with the musical apps. MujicaL (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant information[edit]

AlexanderShakifan29 says this article which even has real plagiarism claims does not have the "controversy" section. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Achmad Rachmani, is what he asked me, it is more the reactions of Casio and Renault Twingo should go in the Controversy section plus the plagiarism signaling and the fall in the markets of the mentioned companies. GeogieTax (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant information II[edit]

It seems irrelevant and unnecessary to place on Wikipedia that Shakira's action has nothing to do with the song. --GeogieTax (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That the singer went out to her balcony and greeted her fans? it is unnecessary and nothing to do with the relevance of this musical article, which he later shared some celebratory images on his Instagram totally unnecessary to be here. More Relevant is the Plagiarism accusations that I added. GeogieTax (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2023[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: not moved. Closed a bit early per WP:SNOW due to the unanimity of responses other than the nominator's. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC) ~Anachronist (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53 → Out of Your League – Various RS give "Out of Your League" as the English name of the song. Some sources still use some variation on the Bizarrap YouTube video title, including (as far as I can tell, all) chart entries - but an issue with that is that (perhaps due to the unwieldiness) even the different charts don't agree how it should appear (none including "Shakira", for example, and even from the artwork it seems clear that's the artist name, not part of the song name). Also, some sources seem unsure about using the video title as a name for the song at all, instead referring to it as the song from the video, which weakens the idea such use is really accepted. I've listed various English sources to help inform discussion.[1]
English-language journalistic sources presented chronologically (video released 11/12 Jan):[2]

  • Pitchfork, 11 Jan: Shakira Joins Bizarrap for New “Bzrp Music Session”
  • Rolling Stone, 11 Jan: Still, no one was expecting global powerhouse Shakira to unleash the way she does on the latest BZRP Music Session
  • BBC, Arts, 13 Jan: A song by Shakira about her ex-partner Gerard Pique cheating on her has broken YouTube records. The video for Out of Your League has been watched more than 63 million times in 24 hours
  • CBS, 14 Jan: Colombian pop star Shakira has racked up more than 82 million views within two days on her music video for "Out of Your League,"
  • NME, 15 Jan: Earlier this month, Shakira released a new song called ‘Shakira Bzrp Music Sessions 53’
  • Forbes, 16 Jan: The video for the four-minute pop song "Out of Your League" is Shakira's first collaboration with Argentinean producer and DJ Bizarrap.
  • NPR, 17 Jan: [transcript note] (SOUNDBITE OF SONG, "BZRP MUSIC SESSIONS, VOL. 53") [...] This is part of his [Bizarrap's] YouTube series of collaborations with both emerging and high-profile artists.
  • Evening Standard, 18 Jan: Shakira’s latest release in partnership with Argentinian DJ Bizarrap
  • GQ, 18 Jan: Take the Shakira diss track ‘Out of your League’
  • Remezcla, 20 Jan: Shakira’s co-writer for “BZRP Music Sessions #53” is opening up about how the epic diss track came together.
  • BBC, Trending, 20 Jan: At least, that's what Shakira did with Out of Your League, her song about footballer ex Gerard Piqué

Charts in Anglophone nations presented alphabetically:

References

  1. ^ As it's English Wikipedia, but foreign-language journalistic sources sit very much with "Out of Your League", while foreign charts seem to have absconded with the Wikipedia name as they're all post-article
  2. ^ I opened a private window, searched for both shakira "out of your league" and shakira "bzrp music sessions", and have included every RS from the first three pages of results (at which point results were either not-English or not-RS almost exclusively - obviously this doesn't catch every source, there's more in the article, but these are focused sources)

Kingsif (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move as nominator. And for my personal view, looking at the chronology it seems like when the video dropped, sources only used the video name to refer to the video - indeed, one review names the video but calls the song "not-yet-named". Over the next couple of days, the song itself was referred to as "Out of Your League", but the Wikipedia article used the video title and this got picked up. It didn't even really get picked up, though, with a single usage (NME) - even as it hit the charts, these don't include "Shakira" in the name (some chart entries are also iffy for sourcing; with streaming/airplay, the video may count and confuse the matter). Frankly, this article is still messy and it seems to have been initially worked on by non-native English speakers (based on the prose quality) and very inexperienced editors (based on what was included and how it was formatted); nothing against them, but if they don't know article naming policy and just copied the video title out of convenience, they've kinda just coined "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" as a song title when it isn't, and the use has at least marginally spread to media, and Wikipedia is firmly not in the business of coining names (speaking of, I think there is firm evidence that, if people on social media etc are using "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" more, it is because they were initially confused about what the song is actually called and came to Wikipedia to find what they see as "official" and then it spread... so COMMONNAME can't be an argument as this was generated by WP). The article should be moved sooner rather than later (preferably to "Out of Your League" as there is zero agreement in sources on how to write "[Bzrp/BZRP] Music Sessions [:/,/-/(nothing)] [Vol./No./#/(nothing)] 53", or if this should be deemed the song name), to prevent more incorrect influence. Kingsif (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As messy as the title looks that is what it is called going off of streaming services and iTunes. All of Bizarrap’s songs in this series are titled Artist: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. #. You can look at the peaks’ sources on the Argentinian Hot 100 for Bizarrap, they are all listed as Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. #, they are not getting the title from Wikipedia. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not called "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" in the English-language charts; as said, this is English Wikipedia. Streaming takes the title from the video, I already said that, too, but charts and journalistic sources don't... your links don't add anything, basically, and your argument is based on irrelevancies (all the videos have a title format, yup, and English Wikipedia doesn't really care what the Argentine charts call it). Kingsif (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s not called “Out of Your League” on those charts either. You said it yourself, it’s called Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53. If you want to suggest removing the “Shakira:” from the page title that’s another matter. But for this, streaming doesn’t “get the title from the video”. That’s just the title of the song. It happens to have a music video, which is on YouTube. You make it sound like the song was put on streaming by unrelated third parties who didn’t know what to call it and that’s simply not true. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to make it sound like that, and I don't think I have; I've noted in different places that the English-language media don't use "Shakira" in the title and actually used another name before (and after) this article was created, and that the charts don't know what to call it either (including what I said before you came, but which apparently confused you, that streaming figures can include the video or its media and so in this way the name - song or video? - gets confusing for those publishing the chart). I was going to propose "Bzrp Music Sessions Vol. 53" but, as I said, nothing can agree on how that's written (though, let's be honest, that should be an uncontroversial minimum). Now, since all the charts give it different names, does that suggest that the chart lists are applying the name they might have seen, rather than what's attached to the song file? Well, that's (one of the reasons) why I lean to the journalistic sources more than the charts. If you want to stick with charts that can't agree and therefore can't all be right, the discrepancy needs noting. (Other reasons include that your average person is more likely to read about the song in the news than look for it on other country's charts, and so they will see it called "Out of Your League" more often than anything else, so coming to WP and seeing a different name is either going to confuse readers or make people/the news decide to change even though they've all clearly been told to call it the same thing in OOYL) Kingsif (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CAMERAwMUSTACHE: Separately (though, really, I don't want debate, i.e. nothing against your !vote, I just felt it needed addendum) - I really think this article needs moving away from the current incorrect name ASAP, and since we've both pointed out that removing "Shakira" is uncontroversial insofar as the English-language charts use some variation of it, would you object if I moved the article to "Bzrp Music Sessions Vol. 53" while the RM continues. Kingsif (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" is used on all of the music consumption sites I listed above so I would argue that is the title. And about half the sources you listed use some variation of the Bzrp title, as do all of the charts. Upon further research, this song's entry in the BMI Repertoire uses the Bzrp title as well and does not list "Out of Your League" as an alternate title. When I searched the two artists' names in a private browser (to avoid biasing it towards one title or the other), the only RS I could see that even mentioned "Out of Your League" was this article from The Guardian which only mentions it as a quote from the song and not as the actual title. Multiple articles from reliable sources such as Remezcla, Billboard (this one uses the full title), Variety (also uses the full title), and Pitchfork all use the Vol. 53 title. Of particular note is this article from Billboard going into the English translation and this one doesn't even call it "Out of Your League". And that's not even taking into account all the Spanish sources. The Bzrp title is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME here, "Out of Your League" is just an alternate name a few articles (side note: Forbes.com is separate from Forbes and considered unreliable) seem to have given it and can be mentioned as an "also known as" bit. As for removing "Shakira:" from the title, I'd lean towards no since some articles do use it and those that don't feel more like they are just shortening the title for brevity's sake--similar to how one might leave off the parenthetical bit of songs like "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)". CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you also meant to reply to me but it ended up at the bottom, but I won't move your comment back up. Thanks for the response, but as I noted, I also used private browser and got different results. I opened this discussion because I had only seen "Out of Your League" in journalistic sources until I actively looked for others, so I find it ridiculous to claim that it doesn't appear anywhere. As I added when expanding my comment for clarity (as I did not want any more confusion than you had), I feel like Wikipedia generated the "Shakira: Bzrp..." as a COMMONNAME, because I cannot find sources that use it as a definite name (rather than video referent) that predate the Wikipedia article, but can find such sources for "Out of Your League". I also think it is clearly not just shortening when articles disinclude the "Shakira:" part, since this does not appear in English-language charts - as much as they are in disagreement, they agree about that. Happy to hear more of your thoughts. Kingsif (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like, you do good work with music charts on Wikipedia, but I think even you underestimate the power of people assuming Wikipedia knows official information when they aren't sure what to call something. The BBC, the most-consumed news source in the world, got in before the Wikipedia article, before charts released streaming figures, and it only uses "Out of Your League"... to avoid repeating myself, I won't repeat myself, besides to say I think it is correct to put a lot of weight on that when judging. Of course, for the speediest resolution, at least ditching "Shakira:" (seriously, that's like, this is Shakira's song, colon, here it is) will prevent the worst bit of misinformation from continuing to be perpetuated. I, again, honestly do want a properly well-reasoned discussion as to the merits of using "Out of Your League" as the name (over some form of "Bzrp Music Sessions #53", which I have never said isn't used/shouldn't be mentioned, FWIW). Kingsif (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to disregard the fact that not a single primary source uses the Out of Your League title in order to support your WP:CIRCLE argument. The literal copyright registration for the song doesn’t even list that title as an alternate. It is extremely unlikely that articles went to Wikipedia for the title instead of the actual primary sources, which again, all use the Bzrp title. I fail to see why we should use a title that no primary sources and less than half of the secondary sources use. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already said somewhere on here that not a single primary source uses the title as it is at the moment - song registration and digital purchasing are the only things that can be considered a primary source here, and they don't even agree with each other, making what the song might be called at all dubious. I have also already said that a song can have different names in English and Spanish, and English Wikipedia likes the English name, thanks. Charts and streaming are not primary sources, platforms write those names themselves, though usually advised by registration/release from artist - again, these do not agree with each other. And if you're relying on a press release having told charts to use one name, why can't you see that for many journalistic sources to be using the same name, it must have come from some official press release - or do you think multiple RS would make one up and somehow all ended up with the same invented name. I don't know if your maths is good, but more sources use "Out of Your League" than any other single name; of course, I also already said that I just think this article needs to be changed from something that didn't appear before it existed, and that while removing "Shakira:" and checking which punctuation is more common would suffice, I had initially looked for an article named "Out of Your League" precisely because that is the only name I had seen used with any consistency. Besides you, who I now find has turned cynical at trying to discount me asking users to defend their arguments rather than just do that, it's a pile-on of people who don't understand naming policy out here. Hopefully a closer will be able to see. Kingsif (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Up to this point I see it as unnecessary, better because they don't add the controversy section again, which should include the topic of plagiarism removed arbitrarily and also with multiple references. GeogieTax (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:I really don't see anyone getting confused with the title just because some news storys are calling it something else when on every chart page it is "Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53". It's noted on the page that it's also known as "Out of Your League" anyway and has been pointed out that on every way to buy or stream the record it is also the same title.DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As said, people read articles about the song more than they read foreign-language charts. Kingsif (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif no one is interested in changing the title of this article. GeogieTax (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, people are having a discussion. If you continue to attempt to derail this discussion because you're unhappy that people revert your unnecessary edits to the article, you face getting banned. Again. Kingsif (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the song was never promoted as "Out of Your League" by Bizarrap or Shakira, and a website of BBC isn't enough for move it. Furawi (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The song was never promoted by either of them with a name at all, and "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" isn't used anywhere at all - i.e. much less than "Out of Your League" - so what name are there not enough sources to support, really? And again needs to be noted, while the BBC is potentially the best source out there, it's not just them. And if all the news sites are using that name, they were definitely told to do so by someone official.
    These !oppose arguments are getting weaker by the minute, and since all appear to be coming from people who can't write a full correct sentence in English, seems like they're (let's say just accidentally to AGF) ignoring the English-language unanimity. Kingsif (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that Furawi decided to remove a source using "Out of Your League" from the article without a reason, and that these have been his only edits in weeks - and he hasn't made major edits for the better part of a year. He may have been canvassed, and has engaged in bad-faith editing related to this discussion. Kingsif (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok my bad for saying only BBC quoted "Out of Your League". I suppose they use "Out of Your League" to save writing the full name of the song (mostly), but also to say that "Piqué is out of Shakira's league" (article you quote from Forbes, January 16), but these are not sufficient reasons. Anyways, "Out of Your League" is simply the translation of one of the lyrics of the song, so the title shouldn't be in English, should be in Spanish. Also, do you have any reference from what you mentioned about "definitely someone official told them to do it"?, even if you did it's still insufficient because the song is mostly known as "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53":
Official links:
Much more links than the ones you gave, and some of them didn't even had "Out of Your League". By the way, I removed the title "Out Of Your League" in the main article because there's no sense to keep it, and I DID NOT removed the source, I had put it elsewhere. And stop supposing about my editions, I mostly edit at the Spanish Wikipedia, and my edition was in good faith. If this discussion ends with a denied request (which is what I think will happen), I will remove it again but keep the reference to elsewhere. Furawi (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much like with move requests, the sources used to support an argument should be judged by quality, not quantity: you can find a dozen tabloids, user-generated websites, or dubious sources that have either been deprecated for use on Wikipedia or been given notes to check context/author before using (Hola, Daily Mail, Times of India, Irish Mirror, The Sun, Marca, Latestly, Metro, Genius, are the ones I know off the top of my head fall under one of those categories).
Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it actually makes total sense to keep "Out of Your League" as an alternate title mentioned in the article - two users who have also !opposed above at least agree on that - because it is used in multiple reliable sources as the only name for the song, and therefore meets WP:V (and will be searched for).
Also, the user warning I gave you was for removing sourced information without a reason (and you still don't have a good reason), not for removing a source. By the way, insisting that you will continue to make the contested edit (remove sourced content) no matter what? Not a good look. If you don't understand any part of this, I can give it to you in Spanish, but you should really take that as an indication that you're not fit to edit English Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that the name "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" isn't used anywhere at all, that's why I gave the links. Those are what I found for English, there's more in Spanish which probably aren't deprecated sites.
What I think is that "Out of Your League" shouldn't be as an alternative name in the first lines, I think it should be in a subtitle. It doesn't matters if it's used as only name in sites, the name of the song isn't "Out of Your League" and that should be enough reason to not keep it in the first lines. And you can't tell me i'm not fit to edit Wikipedia just for not agreeing with you, I told and I'm telling you my arguments.
And why are you reverting my editions in the article? The name of the article is "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53", doesn't makes sense for you to remove "Shakira" in the first lines or below - an user who have also !opposed agrees with this - because that's the literal name of the song. Furawi (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't used anywhere reliable, most links (including yours) don't include the "Shakira:", and certainly none did until after this Wikipedia article; English Wikipedia doesn't care about Spanish sources unless there are insufficient English ones - names of things are certainly different in English and Spanish, hence the article is at She Wolf (Shakira song) (with "Loba" as redirect and mentioned in the lead). The name of the song evidently is "Out of Your League" as far as sources including the BBC are concerned, or they would call it something else and hide OOYL in a footnote - you cannot legitimately advocate that this name doesn't exist when it is, again the only name sources much more reputable than yours use. I said you might be unfit because you struggle to understand the explanations of why your arguments are weak (which is all I'm doing) and still can't compose a sentence in English correctly - and I very clearly just said it offhand for if you wanted help communicating on the talkpage, don't try to smear me. I reverted you because, AGAIN, you removed sourced information without a good reason. And it does make sense to remove the "Shakira:" because that is NOT the literal name of the song, it is not mentioned anywhere official nor by any reputable outlet, and nowhere at all before this article used it. Kingsif (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave multiple reliable sources that used the Bzrp title in one of my previous replies so it not true that no one uses that title. Additionally, nowhere in WP:RS does it say not being in English disqualifies a source from being reliable. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that source not being in English makes them unreliable, I very clearly said that English language sources are preferred 1. in general on English WP, 2. specifically in cases like this, as things have different names in different languages. I could also provide many foreign-language sources that use "Out of Your League", but I also chose not to for the same reason. With your experience on here I'd hope you'd know all this, so I can only see this comment as an attempt to twist my explanations into something they're not so you can undermine them, which is cynical. And remember, the sources you gave use the Bzrp title, not with "Shakira:", which is what this guy was trying to say is everywhere. Kingsif (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The song is widely known as "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" or at least "Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" on platforms and articles, and is promoted under the title. "Out of Your League" is not the official name of the song and just confuses the readers. It doesn't even need a discussion. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me you didn't read the RM without telling me you didn't read the RM. It confused me to see it called something other than "Out of Your League". Kingsif (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose indeed, Wikipedia is NOT in the business of coining names for songs. And streaming services all credit this song as the article is currently titled. This is the title the song has been released under. SecretName101 (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't, it isn't, anyone who looks through the links I and those arguing !oppose have provided can see for themselves that "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" is the least-used and only appeared after the WP article. Kingsif (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm fine with "Out of Your League" being a redirect here seeing as it's used in some sources but all online stores, charts and a lot of media sources still call it "Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53". That makes it the clear WP:COMMONNAME. There is no proof that the sources that use it took it from Wikipedia. Arguing with everybody who !votes oppose is not going to change that. Ss112 16:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ss112: I said that the current title, i.e. "Shakira: Bzrp...", appears to have been taken from Wikipedia; of the other options, OOYL is at least written consistently. I do hope you'll consider that, but I'm really replying because you make me defend myself: I'm not arguing, I'm asking people to justify their !votes with non-opinion reasons, which is a responsibility of the discussion opener; it gets out of hand when lots of people come with no clue about naming policy and don't want to discuss, but that isn't on me. Kingsif (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsif: I didn't "make" you do anything. You didn't need to reply to me nor anybody else here. You've argued with every single person here, including those that have provided you with "non-opinion reasons". It's badgering. Even if there are opinions, arguing with those that provided them, trying to say "provide a reason that isn't an opinion" or trying to negate what they said does nothing and never makes the closing admin/user go "wow, you know what? Kingsif really cares the most, the page should be moved". I trust you know this. Also, I did "consider" that, and I don't consider it valid. There's no proof Wikipedia invented "Shakira: Bzrp" or that the sources who printed that took it from Wikipedia. I didn't even know there was an alternate title for this song until I saw the move discussion, which shows somebody really needs to dig around to find said alternate title. That clearly shows it's not a common title, and it would be doing a disservice to readers to move it there. By all means, you've proven it's used in some sources, so make it a redirect. Ss112 05:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Before the first time I opened a talkpage discussion, I read the instructions carefully so as not to foul it up, and they said it's on the opener to encourage users to make policy-based arguments. So I try to do that, I do need to reply. And that's all, but if other users interpret that as arguing and then try to discredit me completely (not talking about you), er, do I let that be the last word? The last part of the discussion a closer sees? It's not badgering to try to discuss arguments, nor to come back when users won't stay on topic and try to undermine a genuine request. Of course I know a closer isn't going to be impressed by unwieldy discussions, and they obviously don't base decisions on who comments most, but if they come with an open mind I trust that they will see my honest intentions in getting !votes to use good reasoning (even when against my views... and, when users aren't receptive, I guess it helps highlight which !votes can be discarded).
    Now, if you actually want to discuss the presence of the name in sources; first, as I said above, I had only seen the song with the name "Out of Your League" (BBC app ftw) before I saw the Wikipedia article - BBC is, incidentally, the most widely-read news source in the world. Hardly digging. Do you at least consider that valid? Second, there's no proof that the name with "Shakira:" in the front existed before the WP article. There just isn't. Third, you know you've changed the point you're making in regards that, right - in your original !vote, you also discounted the "Shakira:" part. Which is it? Kingsif (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's absolutely badgering to reply to every single person like that will change anything for your argument. Second, there's no proof that the name with "Shakira:" in the front existed before the WP article. There just isn't. There's also no proof that sources took it from Wikipedia either. Unless they explicitly say they did, you don't know that—it's an assumption. BBC is, incidentally, the most widely-read news source in the world. Hardly digging. So what? Did all or even a majority of readers of the BBC click through to whichever of their articles talked about this song? I'm sure they didn't. You might've come across the topic from that BBC article but there's nothing to say which major news source a majority of readers have looked at or been informed of the song from. I have continued to acknowledge "Out of Your League" is a valid alternate title, just not the primary one. Also, I never changed my point—I simply didn't include the "Shakira:" prefix in my !vote, and you'll find I never claimed a majority of sources use the "Shakira:" prefix either. I said I find no convincing proof Wikipedia editors invented the "Shakira:" prefix. The artist-prefix practice for each of Bizarrap's collaborations existed before this song so I imagine when news broke of this song, sources probably went with that practice for this song too, regardless of what Wikipedia did. I might support a move to "Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" but your move request isn't asking for that, it's asking for a move to a title that a clear majority of sources (not just news sources) do not use and everybody can see that (hence the oppose !votes, opinions or not). Regardless, that's it for me—I'm not continuing this talk of what sources did and didn't do. I'm not intent on disproving you like you seem to be for everybody else. You are just continuing to prove my point that you will argue with any- and everybody here, and it's clear you will pick apart anything somebody says to find anything to argue about, so I'm not indulging you with this any further. You're well within your rights to type out another extensive reply, but I'm letting you know I will not read it. You're intent on getting the last word and I'm sure you'll have it, but as I said, it won't help the article be moved. Ss112 07:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even though this is English wikipedia, the song's official title is still "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol 53" (yes with the "Shakira" being part of the title) and even if an English title is given to the song for promotional reasons the official release title of the song is what the article should be called. Some Hispanic sources like this one called the song "Pa Tipos Como Tú" which is probably an easier way for people to remember the song but that's still not the official title. Even if Shakira released an English version titled "Out Of Your League", that still wouldn't mean the article needs to be renamed on any wikipedia. Otherwise Shakira's songs Ojos Así and Estoy Aquí would have to be renamed "Eyes Like Yours" and "I Am Here" respectively. FanDePopLatino (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for mentioning "Pa Tipos Como Tú" as an alternative Spanish title, I would encourage it to become a redirect at least at es.Wiki - using Spanish sources to include "Shakira:" in the title is still inappropriate, and as for your last point, that's not how it works, see articles like She Wolf (Shakira song) (Loba) and Whenever, Wherever (Suerte). Kingsif (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: yeah I think that the redirects are fine. Now as far as having Shakira in the title, it is still appropriate because that is the official title for the song just like all of Bizarrap's songs. Even if we removed "Shakira" from the title because it's unusual, the title "Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" is still an unusual name for a song but if that's how it's titled then we have to leave it like that. Now you misunderstood my last point. "She Wolf" and "Whenever, Wherever" were released as songs in English for her English language albums. Castilian (a.k.a Spanish) versions were also released but the songs were meant for the English language music market were as "Ojos Así" and "Estoy Aquí" were released for the latin music market. FanDePopLatino (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As someone who kind of anticipated the track and checked various news sources upon its release, I was baffled to find out this song has an alternative name through this nomination. Outside of that, I have not come across any mentions of this name and I am sure users will be confused as to why Wikipedia would choose to call it that when it is widely known as "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" (yes, including the addition of "Shakira", just like any other Bzrp collab) on pretty much every music service. Sure, most publications just go with "diss track" instead of calling the song by its name but never by "Out of Your League". It could be a valid redirect but people will certainly not look for "Out of Your League" when trying to find this song. Lk95 (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who had only seen publications call this song "Out of Your League", I was baffled to come to Wikipedia and find what at best can be deemed the video title or Latin American chart name being used as the song name (separate things); your opinion that people do not use it is both clearly wrong and not a policy-based argument. Kingsif (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME used by the BMI, every chart, and every streaming platform. I have no reason to believe that Wikipedia coined it. If anything, the discussion should probably be about the punctuation, not an entirely new title. I would also like to gently point you towards WP:BLUDGEON based on your previous replies. Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 11:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't even think this should be debated. I would also like to see the official full name go back to the top of the article, at least as an alternative name. Sebitagermanotta (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

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.

Songwriting credits[edit]

Shakira should be listed first as a songwriter. She’s the main lyricist. Keityn himself stated that in his interview with Molusco. She is credited as the sole lyricist on Bizarrap’s official YouTube channel as well. There’s no reason for Bizarrap to be put as the first and lead songwriter since he is obviously the producer of the song. 181.235.24.17 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Songwriting, lyricists and composers[edit]

For those of you who dont know, a lyricist is a songwriter; a composer is a songrwiter. Songwriter is an umbrella term. The article already features multiple references/sources to support the claim that Keityn ahd Shakira are the lyricists. The rest, naturally, are composers. Credits on TIDAL are NOT more reliable than the songwriters themselves since Keityn himself stated he was the lyricist alongside with Shakira. Tidal, distributors or labels do not specify who is a composer or a lyricist. Nowadays they put all of them together under the songwriters section. 179.33.230.221 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody doubts that Shakira and Keityn were involved in writing the lyrics. But you are assuming the other songwriters were NOT involved, which is not supported by cites. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakira:_Bzrp_Music_Sessions,_Vol._53&oldid=1209275573"