Talk:Do We Have a Problem?

Feature or co-lead?
I want to establish consensus about Lil Baby's co-lead status on this song (and the upcoming "Bussin"). The music video, Rolling Stone, and Complex (along with other sources) state he is a featured artist, while Apple Music, Spotify, and Tidal, (along with other streaming services and sources) state that he is a co-lead artist. What do you guys think? Pinging about this issue. -- dyl  x  03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that we should follow the credits of streaming services. Compare Minaj's remix of Say So vs Do We Have A Problem. The remix of Say So has ft. Nicki Minaj in the title, but DWHAP doesn't have ft. Lil Baby in the title. So I would say that he is a co lead artist. shanghai. talk to me 05:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm also confused but if the music services say that he is a lead, then we should take that or am I wrong ? Yikes2004 (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, . We should definitely mostly always go with how it's listed on streaming services, because that's how the labels publish it, and there's always consistency on all streaming services with how artists are credited. Any (independent) source can credit an artist as lead or featuring, but they are not the official publishers of the song, so what they say shouldn't be taken as an official credit. AshMusique (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Second week
The first week performance of a song/album alone is not adequate coverage of its "commercial performance". Applying WP:NPOV, there must be coverage of at least the first two weeks of the musical work. You cannot let your fan feelings influence your edits. The article must neutral. At first, you said the data was "unsourced", but when the source was added, you claimed it's "negative"? You're trying every reason to NOT include it. THIS is called "Bias". About 90% of the section is about the great numbers the song achieved, but one line of its second-week performance is "bias"?  ℛonherry  ☘  16:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As per WP:DE, I insist you address this talk topic here, instead of continuing to edit war and trolling my words.  ℛonherry  ☘  18:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was writing up a reply that actually tried to discuss the article content and reach consensus.
 * Unfortunately, as it seems that you want to make even more degrading comments about me and my editing skills as you have done many times in the past, I think a mediator like WP:ANI would be the best option in this situation. I really don't want to be baited into receiving more of your abusive insults. Thank you. shanghai. talk to me 19:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You should've taken your own advice when writing this. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  12:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you stop throwing personal attacks and consistently misgendering me, then we can focus on article content. Good day. shanghai. talk to me 13:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There were no personal attacks. But whatever fits your narrative.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ANI says otherwise, and you've also failed to address your bias against certain artists. Saying you're a "editor who protects NPOV" doesn't actually mean anything, and given that you have 4,500+ edits on Taylor Swift related articles, I highly highly doubt that you are as neutral as you say you are. And try attacking me again for saying I'm knowledgable about certain female artists because I'm actually transparent about my Wikipedia goals. Are you? shanghai. talk to me 21:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
As the song being blocked by "We Don't Talk About Bruno" not even seen on other prominently #2 songs like Anaconda or Up, I hardly see how it belongs in this article too... it's WP:UNDUE negative weight. To any editors replying to this, please focus on the article content and not casting aspersions or pesronal attacks. Thank you. shanghai. talk to me 18:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Mediation
and

So, full disclosure, Ronherry reached out to me to intervene with some of the edits going on here. I'd rather try to help you work through it rather than take any admin action. ANI frowns upon content disputes, and quite frankly, with all the reverts happening, you both could be liable to a short edit warring block if you go there. And that really won't solve anything, so as I said, I'd prefer to help you work through it.

I'm very well versed in writing music content, but have no real connections positive or negative to this song or these artists. So I could be ideal in helping.

So please, briefly outline your side of the dispute(s) and see what we can figure out. Sergecross73  msg me  17:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I restored this, which, since then, has been removed several times with no valid reason. That is all.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. In my experience, while we don't do weekly updates every week, a short note about it rising or dropping in week two isn't really out of line, if it stops there. (Unless there's new peaks or if it eventually tops the chart. Sergecross73   msg me  17:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I've been saying. We don't have to cover the entire chart run, but the least we could do is to simply mention its second-week placement just like any single or album's commercial performance section on Wikipedia.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's see what RogueShanghai says next. Sergecross73   msg me  18:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To be very clear- I was the one who originally started this article, and Ronherry has been consistently edit warring and pushing this information, which like I already pointed out in the above section, is not seen on other song articles like Anaconda and Up. Second of all, I've already covered how hostile Ronherry has been with me, this is not our first edit dispute, he has also thrown similar personal attacks at me in other articles such as Katy Perry.
 * Third, it is very concerning that he went to your talk page in an obvious attempt to campaign, and he's also breaking WP:FORUMSHOP, which says to Talking trash by calling me a "biased fandom-driven editor" and making up a conspiracy theory about sockpuppets is not in any way neutral. This is highly irregular for an editor of Ronherry's caliber. I can go to CheckUser if it comes to that, because I am transparent about what I do and I have no sockpuppets.
 * Now, I'm happy to talk about the article content and have a discussion about that, but so far, Ronherry has seemingly been exhibiting tendentious editing behaviors. Ronherry mentions that it was removed "with no valid reason" but I've outlined several valid reasons that this info doesn't make sense: it isn't seen on other similar articles, it's not due weight, etc. So far though, Ronherry's only response to my reasons are to say I'm "disruptively editing" and to throw more personal attacks. shanghai. talk to me 21:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I already knew that Ronherry was going to revert me and then ask me to take it to the talk page in an inappropriate WP:PLEASEDISCUSS manner. I was prepared to take it to WP:NPOVN, and again if it does finally come to that then I'm happy to go there to discuss about the article content (not throw personal attacks and make up conspiracy theories) any time. shanghai. talk to me 21:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, focus on the dispute. If this devolves into you complaining about each other then this isn't going to end well for either of you. That's not a threat, that's me seeing how these things escalate every time in my decade of being an Admin. I'm offering you a means to de-escalate. Both of you should want this. Will you participate or not? Sergecross73   msg me  21:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm very happy to make it about article content so long as Ronherry drops the constant trash talk. Second of all, there has still not been a single response against any of my points that it isn't information that's seen on other articles and that it's undue weight, just constant aspersions. shanghai. talk to me 21:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's start there. Please expand on that. Why is a short half/sentence about second week performance an UNDUE issue? Sergecross73   msg me  22:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I can cite plenty of articles that don't actually cover the performance of the song in the second week consistently, so why is it different when it comes to this article? And furthermore, if the US second week performance is going to be covered, shouldn't all the other countries second week performances be covered to as to avoid a US based perspective? But that would quickly clutter up the section and not make sense at all. shanghai. talk to me 00:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no particular guideline saying it cannot happen. And we need to be mindful of WP:OSE - just because you've observed it doesn't make it right. Sometimes particular jumps or drops can be deemed noteworthy. A common determinant for inclusion is whether or not a a third party source has taken note of something. Have any sources besides the charts themselves noted this? Sergecross73   msg me  00:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, no third-party has reported it independent of Billboard. But if that was the case, all of the prose in the current 'Commercial performance' section, except the #2 peak, should be removed as they haven't been covered by a third party source as well.  ℛonherry  ☘  04:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Ronherry, stop edit warring and casting aspersions. And also, your argument to remove the other prose is WP:POINTy.
 * Sergecross73, in this specific case this drop is not noteworthy at all with no coverage of this specific drop. If you look at the songs that have noteworthy drops, such as Trollz (song) or Willow (song), both have Billboard news articles that talk about this drop because they both broke records. Even if there was a source, it is still is undue weight, as most songs do not have coverage for the second week if it's not noteworthy. shanghai. talk to me 10:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to your lawyering. Plus, We do not care about other songs. This is about "Do We Have a Problem?" only.  ℛonherry  ☘  12:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * And I've decided to drop the case. I'm simply tired of this. This is going in circles. Bad articles can stay bad. I'd contribute somewhere else. Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.  ℛonherry  ☘  12:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you reverted my attempt at personally mediating the situation. Okay. If you want to stay bitter and hostile, then that's your prerogative. I can't do anything if you want to stay the way that you are, making it personal instead of responding to my points. shanghai. talk to me 12:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If Ron is dropping it, we're done here. But again,, please familiarize yourself better with WP:OSE. Just pointing at another article doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It's really better to refer to past discussions/consensus on the matter, or various guidelines or MOS info. Sergecross73  msg me  13:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * srry for a late comment, but I believe the drop should be added like mentioned. The "commercial performance" section should be called "commercial debut" if it doesn't present at least a second week. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Expansion on Critical Reception
I would like to see an expansion of the critical reception. Positive, negative, mixed, something. 2601:CE:4180:2530:E935:9F9A:8049:D9A7 (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)