Talk:Paramore (album)

Proposed move
Does "Grow Up" have enough material to warrant its own article? stated in his first edit to the page that the song had enough coverage and chart positions; let's look at the facts:
 * → The song is merely addressed in some album reviews, one of which belongs to an unreliable source. At this point it's basically a stub—the composition section only has one line, the critical reception part only has two reviews. WP:NSONGS (Wikipedia guideline page) states that coverage in form of an album review doesn't necessarily mean that a song is notable;
 * → The song only entered a component chart of the UK Singles Chart (the rock chart), at a low top 40 peak. Is this a point that secures "Grow Up"'s notability? Maybe. However, a mention in the Singles section of Paramore would suffice, I think.

I hate to be the one to do this but the song isn't really notable. Please present your arguments accompanying a vote of Support or Oppose. —  prism   △  20:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As the creator of that article, I oppose this. NSONGS might say that, but WP:GNG says that a topic does not need to be the main subject of an article, but should be more than a passing mention under the "significant coverage" portion, a criteria that the article passes. It can be assumed that NSONGS says that about album reviews because they often give passing mentions to the songs. But that's not always the case. Some album reviews are even track-by-track, where each song is reviewed individually. This album has multiple track-by-track reviews too. Also, does the position it charted in really matter? Kokoro20 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yet another reason to merge. You're citing album review coverage as establishing notability for "Grow Up", however if that's your argument, all songs included in Paramore should have their own article. You're also assuming that NSONGS refers to 'passing mentions', however it clearly states, "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears...". If a magazine made a list of the songs of the summer and it listed "Grow Up" as one of the songs, also reviewing it or talking about it, it would mean that it is notable. Some of my own articles were demoted from GA status due to NSONGS, and some album reviews found on those pages dedicated the majority of their text to one particular song. Guess what: it still didn't mean the song was notable. Regarding the position: it doesn't usually matter but if it had topped the Hot 100 it would definitely be an argument for keeping the article. —  prism   △  21:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case, I really wonder why NSONGS is written like that, considering it can be a contradiction to GNG in some cases with album reviews. If the song is given an in-depth review, whether or not it's from an album review, really should not matter at all. So my GNG argument still stands, even if it does mean more songs from the album could get their own articles. Kokoro20 (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "really should not matter at all" That's the view I have of it as well. But that's your POV. It doesn't stand as an argument. —  prism   △  09:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * How does it not? I made a policy-based argument regarding GNG, just as you did regarding NSONGS when you were proposing this merge. Kokoro20 (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It does, sorry... pinging, BlueMoonset may be able to provide some more depth into this. —  prism   △  09:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, a discussion at NSONGS should be started regarding album reviews, because this just doesn't really make sense to me. Also, you're not canvassing, are you? You shouldn't notify someone if you know they would support your arguments. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * People have tried already and the consensus is to keep the guidelines as they are, unfortunately. I'm actually not canvassing, and I've added more users to the conversation, in spite of their (probable) opinion. —  prism   △  10:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at the NSONGS talk page, it's been a while since the last discussion. It wouldn't hurt to have another discussion to attempt to change the consensus. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As mentioned, the simple fact is that coverage from album reviews doesn't count as notable coverage. If a song is only covered by album reviews, it isn't regarded as notable, particularly if only mentioned briefly. A song does not necessarily have to be the sole subject of an article, but it does need multiple reliable third-party sources that give it significant coverage independent of its album to be notable. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 10:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * But album reviews in question aren't just brief mentions. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of length, coverage from an album review does not establish notability. With that being said, I support the merge. Plausible search term, so I don't think this is quite a delete. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 10:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Which is a complete contradiction to the "significant coverage" criteria of GNG. So, I still stand by my GNG argument. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You might want to take a look at "Ain't It Fun (Paramore song)". Completely revamped by me and ready for GAN. —  prism   △  11:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw it already. Go ahead and nominate it. I wouldn't be able to review it though, since I've already edited the article a lot in the past. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not so much a "contradiction" as it is adding a caveat or additional criterion. More specific notability criteria for different works was created as Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of information. The more specific criteria exists for a reason, so it should be put to use. No prejudice against future recreation when significant coverage independent of the album comes around, though. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 11:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

lead paragraph
"Universal acclaim"? I think that's a bit of a reach. PurpleChez 7/2/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.118.65.34 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is consistent with what Metacritic says. I'll go ahead and clarify that part in the lead. Kokoro20 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Paramore (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paramore (album). 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/20130213110003/http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1701820/paramore-now-music-video-premiere.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1701820/paramore-now-music-video-premiere.jhtml
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CV3FRPJ7?url=http://www.centrodedesarrollodigital.com/amprofon3/Top100.pdf to http://www.centrodedesarrollodigital.com/amprofon3/Top100.pdf

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) 04:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)