Talk:Me!

Merger proposal
I propose to redirect/merge Me! into this article (ME! (Taylor Swift song)), in that I believe Me! should redirect here. I believe that this should remain the article on the topic, as it has a longer history with more editors (that was partially split by Anthony Appleyard into ME! (mural)), and the Me! article is basically just repeating information (less, at this point). Another user, MaranoFan, created a redirect pointing to a disambiguation page yesterday for Me!, then several hours after I had made ME! (mural), they created content in a draft at Draft:Me!, then moved that content into the mainspace at Me! while I was working on this article. Creation of content (not redirects) by me at any of the split articles predates any content created by another user; see what is now split to ME! (mural). I explicitly asked Another Believer for his help at his talk page and said there, not long after starting what is now at ME! (mural) that I was open to turning this article into one about the song, as the mural and song were for the same topic, and I did so. Ping.

Izno has recommended this discussion take place per Help:Merge. I believe no history merging needs to take place at this point, as Anthony Appleyard has determined the two are parallel histories and cannot be history-merged. Nobody's redirects or contributions are being deleted. I want the drama over this article and "who wants their username first in the history" to end, so have opened this to get consensus.  Ss  112   21:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion about a merge has been decided :: see the end of User talk:Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What was the decision exactly? Link mostly seems like two people shouting at each other. Regardless, it seems clear that the article title should not have the song title in all caps since it's a stylization. So at the very least, the title could be Me! (Taylor Swift song). I'm hesitant to do the move myself since there seems to be some kind of drama about the article title... Electricnet (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This was not concerning a page move, but a merge of content. Anthony Appleyard decided not to merge two pages' parallel histories that were started on the same topic. If you wish to have the page moved, please start a move request before changing the article text again. We just went through a whole thing over it. Thank you.  Ss  112   07:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A user randomly decided that my article; which was created first, expanded first (according to revision histories of both pages), made at the correct title according to naming conventions + without excess disambiguation, and as they themselves noted had almost the same amount of content as this one; should be redirected to this one (which only attracted more edits because the creator of this page gamed the system and linked this title from all the related pages. I am absolutely baffled.— N Ø  07:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear God, let it go. Nobody "gamed" anything, and you're misrepresenting the situation based on opinion. Users don't win sway opinion or win anyone's favour by continuing to bring up about something that was decided and everyone else wanted to move past.  Ss  112   07:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The page has been moved again now.  Ss  112   07:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "everyone else wanted to move past" — I don’t. And I will make sure more admins know about your WP:GAMING. And refrain from editing other users' comments. . The edit history at Me! and Draft:Me! still exists and thus it can still be proved my content was written first :)— N Ø  07:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you say so. I was trying to fix the indent. Also, I previously said that's not what gaming is. Admins are not going to care about you harping on about this issue. I am closing this discussion now per Help:Merge, as a decision was already made by Anthony Appleyard.  Ss  112   07:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhm, when someone eventually requests that this page be moved to Me! then it will be brought up again that my creation of that page predates everything here. Don’t be under the misunderstanding that you’ve successfully swept it under the rug.— N Ø  07:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't sweep anything under the rug; Anthony Appleyard made the decision, not me. Now please stop. The discussion was archived before you edited.  Ss  112   07:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Article name
This is the only song titled "Me!", so it's unnecessary the "Taylor Swift " in the title, it needs to be named "Me! (song)". BautyButera (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While this is the only song that it literally called 'Me!', there is another article for a song called 'Me' (by Paula Cole). So while you're technically right that there is only one song called "Me!", I would say that it is informative to keep the "Taylor Swift" in the title of this article to avoid confusion with the "Me (Paula Cole song)" article Marloura (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that the guidelines detailed at WP:SMALLDETAILS would support this article being under the article title Me!. In fact, the policy gives Airplane and Airplane! as an example of what can be considered acceptable article titling. So, surely Me! would be sufficiently distinct from other meanings at Me. TheKaphox   T  16:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Me! is a good enough title to distinguish it from songs called Me (without exclamation). I support a history merge into Me! as the article that's currently at the target was started for the same song.--NØ 17:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok..so what do you need from me 2603:90D8:3F0:66F0:5B78:497E:10ED:A977 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The exclamation mark at the end of the title is a stylization, so the article should be titled Me (Taylor Swift song). The first sentence of the article could look like this: "Me" (stylized as "ME!") is a song by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift featuring Brendon Urie, the lead singer of Panic! at the Disco. Also, in the article Wow (Post Malone song), the period at the end of the song is considered a stylization. Both are punctuation, and are both used to stylize the song. Electricwater (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Lover
Taylor said that the names of the album and the second single are hidden in the music video. There is a neon sign, saying "Lover", next to the scene of Taylor and Brendon on the unicorn head. Many theorize "Lover" is both the name of the album and second single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8300:1475:8D4F:88D7:30DC:7134 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is just speculation at this point. It is best to wait for an announcement before doing anything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019
Remove the "polarizing review" part and move up the reviews from more important and reputed platforms like Billboard, Forbes, Rolling Stones, etc. Push down or remove the reviews from irrelevant platforms like Atlantic and Pitchfork 103.225.100.51 (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌, Pitchfork is much more reputed in terms of musical reviews than the likes of Billboard. I don’t see any reason to remove the "polarising reviews" part either since it’s the truth, nor a reason to move up positive reviews, swiftie.—NØ 07:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove the "polarizing review" putting the positive reviews above the negative ones is just right. Moises Rei (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? The "polarizing reviews" assessment is correct, the reviews are almost evenly split in negative and positive.—NØ 07:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Track listing
Do we really need inclusion of the limited edition Billboard Music Awards Rehearsal vinyls which were clearly just a temporary promotional gimmick to help its Billboard chart performance?—NØ 01:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That is an opinion. It should be included because it is a track listing, whether you think it was a “promotional gimmick” or not, it remains a track listing of the song. Electricwater (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , It doesn’t "remain a track listing of the song". Each version was sold separately. And those vinyls were limited edition items which are no longer available for sale. It would only make even the slightest bit of sense if the section was renamed to "versions".—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 00:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Me!
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Me!'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hot 100":<ul> <li>From Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song): </li> <li>From Lil Nas X: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured artist
Should the featured artist be shown as Brendon Urie of Panic! at the Disco or just Brendon Urie? Richard Hendricks (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Brendon Urie of Panic! at the Disco.—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 17:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

anyone here come across a photo of the mural that meets the requirements to be uploaded to wikimedia commons?
i think it would be great to have here in the Promotion section because its mentioned there as part of the promotion. Melodies1917 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Genre
I know the source given does state "Me!" is a bubblegum pop song, but I don’t think we should use an article that is hating on the subject of the article as a reliable source. Also, this is the only source I could find that used this genre to describe "Me!". Most articles state that "Me!" is a pop song, so it would make more sense to use that genre to describe the song. Electricwater (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Independent is generally considered a reliable source. We can’t discount it because the review is negative. If there are sources calling it just "pop" as well then that should be added.—<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 16:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Peak
Please stop changing the peak for "Me!" from 67 to 1 for the Rolling Stone Top 100. Please read WP:RSCHART. I will ping editors who continue to disrupt the charts section. There is no need for this article to get page-protected over something so trivial. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read this as you were the most recent editor to have changed the position. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Read above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"Mixed reviews"
Curious why users "Jessintime" and "ThaddeusSholto" feel the need to continually disruptively change "mostly negative" to "mixed reviews" in the Critical Reception section given that almost every review quoted here is plainly negative. I invite them to discuss their points of view here, or add positive reviews from reputable sources, rather than further vandalize the page. Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The reviews are mixed. You are blanking content to remove anything positive and then altering it to claim all negative. This is disruptive. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not "blanking" anything. For example? And do you think "a cloyingly goofy Disney-pop confection with an earworm chorus and a certain try-hard insidiousness to it". is a positive review? Do you think "anodyne" is a positive descriptor? Is this a reading comprehension issue? Justdoinsomeedtits


 * This edit removed over 2000 bytes of text. There was no valid reason to remove those review from reliable sources like Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)