Talk:Kill Bill (SZA song)/Archive 1

@User:Ronherry
I believe that there is now a need to have this conversation in this talk page to avoid further conflict. I hope we can come to a consensus on how to fairly address both our concerns. I should have done this earlier when you first made the change, so apologies.


 * "The song is first released, and everything else happens next." - this is clearly not the case with "Kill Bill" if you have been paying attention to the song. When the article says release, it discusses the song's release as a single, or in other words its radio impact. What most people mean when they say a song was released. While "Kill Bill" was released as an album track and that technically does happen first before its commercial performance, most of that section discusses its radio release; in fact the first paragraph was written with "it was originally an album track but it became a single eventually" in mind. Which leads me to ...
 * "Release should always precede Commercial performance." - as far as I know this is not official policy or guideline anywhere. For instance WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice does not say either section should come after the other, and even if there was it states that There will be occasional reasons to modify or ignore some of the suggestions here and there are many sections which will not apply to many articles. Just use your best judgement and work together with other editors trying to improve coverage of albums. Either one can come first, and it absolutely depends on the circumstances. Look at Streets (song) - it discusses its chart performance in the US before proceeding to its release in the country, because it started charting everywhere before radio impact! When I expanded this article what I had in mind was to arrange sections in a mostly chronological order - and "Kill Bill" hit major chart milestones before its radio release so "commercial performance" came first. It feels off to say "following its success on streaming platforms, RCA Records chose it as the next radio single" without first expanding on the details of that success. While most song articles talk about release first before commercial performance, you need to have a way better argument than essentially WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to change a perfectly fine section arrangement.
 * There is a correlation with its performance on streaming services with RCA's decision to service it to radio. I am sure rewording the clearly cited "following its success on streaming services" from the lead was better than flat-out removing it entirely.
 * "Removed cruft + WP:NPOV" lots of things here.
 * I am okay with rewording or even removing "huge" from the "huge success" part. The Billboard source cited used the exact wording "huge success" to refer to it so I did the same, but I will concede that it sounds too peacocky and of course there are more neutral ways to word these - perhaps "achieved major success"? Or focus on its large streaming numbers instead?
 * I am a bit on the fence with removing the Global Spotify and Apple Music charts. I believe it helped illustrate just how successful it was on streaming services, but I understand seeing it seems redundant to the Global 200 sentence which has more of an "official" air to it.
 * On edits I disagree with: why remove the weeks it spent atop the Global 200 and US Streaming Songs, for instance? Weeks atop major charts like these are fine to include and are not cruft - look at Anti-Hero (song) which discusses how many weeks it spent atop a Hot 100 component chart.
 * And why this consistent need to say "Anti-Hero" blocked it from number one? The average reader does not want to know what songs "blocked" what songs from the top spot, and that is something I personally dislike about so many articles on #2 songs, unless the nature of the blocking was noted by publications for its unusual nature (e.g. Lavender Haze, Break Up with Your Girlfriend, I'm Bored, or Shake It Off (Mariah Carey song), which were blocked from the top spot by another song from the same artist). It draws unnecessary attention to someone else's achievements - the article is not about the other artist and their work. If you disagree and feel like readers would want to know what was #1 when "Kill Bill" went #2, I would advise against using the "blocked" wording. It carries the implication that the actual subject of the article is lesser than the other song (i.e. it went #1 and prevented this song from doing so). I would say that's textbook cruft ironically enough.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the matter. Please don't revert back to your version of the page until we have agreed on everything. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍  ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?" 📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 01:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * First of all, respectfully, you should not have reverted my edits if you really cared about consensus between us. But here we are. You did not revert one or two of my edits, but all of them, which makes me question whether you are aware of WP:OWN. Nevertheless, the following are my concerns:
 * Every song gets released first. It's illogical to put Release after Comm. perf. and Crit. rec. Kill Bill was released as a track first, and became a single next. The single release is not the actual release of the song. And please do not cite other Wikipedia articles (unless they're WP:FA) to back your version of the article structure.
 * "Following its success..." is peacocky. Let the song's chart positions tell whether the song was successful or not. A work being successful is mentioned in the lead only in WP:EXCEPTIONAL cases where a dozen reliable music publications support that specific fact.
 * "Huge" is not an encyclopedic word. It should never be used anywhere in the article. "The song achieved success on streaming platforms" is a line that we can include in Commercial Performance section only.
 * Yes, we can add about the weeks the song spent at #1 on Global and US streaming charts.
 * Please refer to WP:BADCHARTS; reporting of a song/album's positions on streaming platform charts is deprecated. This includes Spotify, Apple Music and iTunes.
 * Articles of songs peaking #2 always mention the concurrent #1 song. It's how charts and sources that report charts work in mainstream media. They always address the #1 song. Your personal dislike for it should not interfere with factual reporting of charts. But I do agree with replacing the word "blocked", with something like "prevented". Regards.
 *  ℛonherry  ☘  12:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ?  ℛonherry  ☘  19:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ronherry, respectfully, I wish you would have been more patient with waiting for a response. I had to be taken to the ER and stayed there for an entire night because of extremely sensitive and personal reasons that I do not feel right disclosing here, so I did not see your first ping. I did see the second one and wanted to reply as soon as possible, but frankly I got too demotivated from that ER trip that it took me a while to come up with a level-headed rebuttal. Apologies. Responses below.


 * Streets (song) is an FA, so why you thought the comparison I made was invalid is a bit confusing.
 * And while yes, the song's release as a track is its first released version, a majority of the article's release section talks about Kill Bill's promotion to radio + the acoustic version and bundle, which happened as a direct product of its commercial performance. Even the last sentence of the first paragraph, which is supposed to be about its release as an album track, states "following its success on streaming platforms, RCA Records chose it as the next radio single". That first sentence alone is already indicative of why readers would get confused if we make the release section come first ..


 * Next point, which is about the WP:BADCHARTS one. You make a good point with this one, so I had removed the mention of the Spotify and Apple Music charts from the article. Figured that information was redundant anyway.


 * 1) very wild claim to make given so many song articles exist, and 2) no they do not. See Therefore I Am (song) or Hotline Bling. One might be tempted to call them exceptions to the rule, but for that to be valid, well... there has to be a rule. Yet as far as I know, there is no guideline anywhere that says you have to include the "concurrent #1". Not saying you are barred from adding the fact completely of course - we can agree to keep it if things go down a certain way - it merely demonstrates that including it is not a necessary requirement. Just as much as you are not barred from adding it, no one is barred from removing it, either.
 * In relation to this point: "Flowers" is the current #1 song in the US, so now the whole "Anti-Hero blocked Kill Bill" addition is even more moot. Now you might be thinking of putting that both songs blocked it from #1, which you can do I suppose. But the article would be straying way further from the subject, because now you are mentioning two songs that prevented it from getting a certain milestone. I heavily advise you put it in a footnote instead if you really insist on keeping it.
 * I also noticed you removed the "peaked at number 2 to surpass 'Kiss Me More' (2021) by Doja Cat on which she is featured as her highest-charting song in the United States" bit in favor of the "blocked from #1" factoid. Why remove the former but keep the latter? Articles should strive to be as on-topic and close to the subject as possible (it's not about "this is how chart positions are factually reported in music magazines" - remember we are an encyclopedia. Pointing to the way magazines write about things is not always a good argument). "Kill Bill surpassed song X to break Y record" is okay in this regard because the subject of the sentence is still the subject of the article ... whereas with "song X and then song Y blocked it from #1" now the focus is shifted away from the topic because the subject now is the other two songs. The other two songs are doing the surpassing.
 * TL;DR, this record the song broke in terms of SZA's discography is more on-topic and therefore more worth highlighting than "what blocked this from #1", as if it wasn't already worth highlighting enough. Adding both facts would make the relevant paragraph way more cluttered too, which is why I heavily recommend the footnote.


 * Next. "Huge" is not an encyclopedic word. It should never be used anywhere in the article. You are right, which is why I reworded it as I mentioned earlier. But The song achieved success on streaming platforms" is a line that we can include in Commercial Performance section only is a comment that puzzles me, which I would further explain below.


 * Again you miss the point of why "following its success..." was in there. (Note the full sentence was "Following its success on streaming services, "Kill Bill" impacted US radio on January 10, 2023, as the fifth single from SOS.") It's not there solely because the article wants to say the song was successful - notwithstanding the fact that many news outlets say it is which already makes it suitable for lead inclusion, by the way        . I said this very clearly in my original post, but let me say it again - that phrase is there to explain why RCA sent to radio
 * FWIW, I agree that calling a song a "huge commercial success" does warrant WP:EXCEPTIONAL sourcing to be mentioned at all in the lead, but something like "following its large streaming numbers/following its success on streaming services it was released as a single", while a little bit demanding on sourcing, is a milder case. To claim "large streaming numbers" or "success on streaming" does not have the same degree of exceptionality or does not have the same amount of potential to invite controversy in such a way that its presence on the lead deserves removal on sight. Given SZA's label themselves cites "large streaming numbers" as a reason why they pushed it to radio and (again!) so many sources call Kill Bill commercially successful streaming-wise, keeping that phrase in the article was perfectly valid. Plus let us not bore readers with a simple release date and release chronology when we know that the circumstances behind the single release are interesting and remarkable enough for a lead inclusion. (Streets (song) also says its single release is attributed to its viral success, so if you want an FA precedent... there you go.)
 * And on "Let the song's chart positions tell whether the song was successful or not" - people like to see statistics like chart peaks interpreted into something meaningful (otherwise no one would be interested with adding what blocked what from #1). Raw numbers are boring. I do agree that merely saying the song was successful is a bit bland and peacocky and surely there are other ways to communicate that. Thing is, just numbers does not cut it. As mentioned earlier, "Kill Bill" surpassed her song with Doja  Cat to become her highest-charting song in the United States, and it was her first ever #1 peak in the Global 200, which is part of what makes it notable by enwiki standards. The article lead must cover as much of what makes the subject notable as possible. Hence saying "Bolstered by its success on streaming services, 'Kill Bill' surpassed 'Kiss Me More' as her highest-charting song in the United States, peaking at number 2, and became her first number 1 song on the Billboard Global 200", I would argue, would be a helpful compromise.

📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 19:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the long-winded replies. There was a lot, and I tried my best to substantially address them all while keeping it as short as I could. With this, I have collapsed each major point for easier reading and navigation. Take your time. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍  ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"

Commercial performance (again)
@User:Ronherry, since we're unfortunately still going back and forth (and if you wanted to quit edit warring you would have started a discussion here).


 * There is no guideline or policy anywhere that says citations have to come at the end of any punctuation mark. It is completely okay to have that there and I question why you keep reverting that part.


 * And I fail to see how there is any semblance of "sugarcoating" around the use of "Behind Anti-Hero and Flowers"; if we wanna play the "other articles do it" game, Me! has the same verbiage. Why the insistence that it was "blocked" or "prevented" which has connotations of failure to achieve something? One could argue that's afoul of WP:NPOV in the other direction. "Prevented from #1" is a bunch of unnecessary words, too, and simply saying "Behind Anti-Hero..." is better, irregardless of any POV issues, for its concision. Remember that being concise makes prose better by Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍  ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?" 📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 15:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * False. It is adviced by Wikipedia to place inline citations at the fullstop, except very special cases, which is not the case with Kill Bill.
 * "Prevented" is both concise and offers clarity, whereas "Behind" is vague and not self-explanatory in context of charts.
 * Regards
 *  ℛonherry  ☘  14:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Cover art change
@Bryantriplex: I have reverted the edits you made to File:SZA - Kill Bill.png. The cover art used for KB in major download and streaming services (Spotify, Apple Music/iTunes, Amazon, Deezer, Tidal) is the one with the training dummy. Billboard uses this cover art in their chart websites too, to seal the deal.

The one that looks, I suppose, truer to the Kill Bill films' aesthetic (perhaps the reason why you changed things in the first place) is used specifically for the acoustic version (Spotify, Apple Music/iTunes, Amazon, Deezer, Tidal). Only the TDE website uses the second cover art for the entire bundle. We should stay true to the cover art that is more used for the single, not a mere version of it. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"><sup style="font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">💬 "Will you call me?" <sub style="font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 05:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I changed it because it’s the one on the official website for the standalone single (official sites are frequently used as sources for single cover arts on Wikipedia) and the one that’s used on streaming is for the digital EP bundle but I will respect your reasons for keeping it as it was previously Bryantriplex (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)