Talk:In the Night (song)

Right...
I don't hear no bad words in this song. Why would iTunes assume this as explicit?2601:194:101:2B73:B049:A5E:BB4:CE81 (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Article creator
On 10 October, 2015, I created an article for this song at In the Night (song). Which was however the wrong destination, and the article was eventually redirected. But I added prose to that article way before this article was created. Is there a way the revision history of this article could reflect that article's? cuz the current situation is as bad as a cut-n-paste move. --MaranoFan (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In the Night (The Weeknd song). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170802014826/http://charts.monitorlatino.com/top20/Argentina/General/20160613 to http://charts.monitorlatino.com/top20/Argentina/General/20160613

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Should the image in the article's info box be counted as the official single art for "In the Night"?
Fellow users, the image presented in the article's info box is an official piece of work for the song "In the Night" used most notably in the song's official audio video on YouTube. However, as user SNUGGUMS mentioned in our dispute there are not any real good sources to support the image's validity despite it being an official piece of work. Since the the art is official, I personally think that the image should remain in the article due to it being an official piece of art being created for the single. So considering all of this should the image be kept or deleted? The shortcomings of the non-free use rationale can be discussed according to the template placed on the file's page. --DovahDuck (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2018 (EST)
 * You have failed to properly substantiate authenticity through retailers, streaming services, or even posts from official artist/label social media accounts (fan accounts are insufficient). I'm not going to pretend as if the failure to provide such URLs in the file isn't suspicious. Being shown on YouTube or Vevo also doesn't by itself mean it's official artwork as you suggest. It just looks like you're making desperate attempts to defend someone's forgery. The uploader (who has been indefinitely blocked) was likely a fan who thought they could fool people by taking a screenshot instead of actually inserting a valid link containing it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, it seems to be used here on the official YouTube account : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CbQl98JEbE I don't see what you're getting at, it's the artwork used by the official channel for the artist to depict the song. What would lead you not to believe that this is anything other than the official artwork? Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it isn't shown in any solo purchase for the track or even on streaming services plus neither the artist or label have confirmed it as official artwork. YouTube and Vevo aren't forms of commercial release. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "or even posts from official artist/label social media accounts (fan accounts are insufficient)." I would consider the artist's verified YouTube channel to be an official social media account. How music is being released and distributed has been changing, that is why traditional retailers like HMV Canada have gone belly-up. The Life of Pablo, for example, was never even released as a CD. I fail to see why the cover artwork for a song, taken from the artist's official YouTube account should be considered "unofficial" in any capacity. Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By social media, I was referring to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, SnapChat, etc. where artists more directly leave posts for fans on their main page and interact with them. The Life of Pablo had a release to Tidal, which is actually a music streaming service unlike Vevo/YouTube which are just general video sites. It's not like they're specifically dedicated to music unlike iTunes, Spotify, Tidal, Apple Music, Google Play, 7digital, or Amazon Music. Snuggums (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether YouTube is to be considered a social media platform, you're missing the mark. A official channel of distribution for the artist uses this artwork specifically for this song. You're going to have to come up with a more compelling argument other than "YouTube is not a social media platform, and this artwork wasn't tweeted/snapchatted by the artist". Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)