Talk:Rain on Me (Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande song)

Requested move 15 May 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Rain on Me (Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande song). Sceptre (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Rain On Me (Lady Gaga song) → Rain on Me (Lady Gaga song) – Per MOS:TITLE. Song may also require moving to Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande song, depending on official release credit.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 22:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per same reason as above. As for the "Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande song" part, we may have to wait until the song is released to see how they credited Ariana. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Regardless of how a song is stylized, any title/song should follow MOS:CAPTITLE. AshMusique (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Move to Rain on Me (Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande song). Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as the correct capitalization. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:TITLE, as mentioned above. Also support moving it to "Rain on Me (Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande song)" right away, as everything suggests both will receive equal credit. -- Lk95 09:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move to "Rain on Me (Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande song)". Redthreadhx (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move to "Rain on Me (Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande song)". Per same reason as above. --Sricsi (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Support, per MOS on title. → Lil- ℧niquԐ1 - ( Talk ) - 20:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support same reasons above. TheSkinsAdded (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Carbrera (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Support move to "Rain on Me (Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande song)" per reasons above. EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support same as above. Mediafanatic17 (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. LOVI  33  13:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

move to "Rain on Me (Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande song)". same reasons above. Musiceditor515 (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Proposing early close per the snowball clause. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 05:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rolling Stone #1
the song debuted at #1 on the Rolling Stone Top 100 Chart Rain on Me #1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.106.245 (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020
The key for this song is listed as c# minor when all the recordings I have listened to of it have been in D minor 90.253.232.19 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  JTP (talk • contribs) 22:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Cover
The single has a different cover for the 7" vinyl version than the CD version. We should upload it. (https://shop.ladygaga.com/collections/music/products/rain-on-me-7-vinyl-digital-single) --81.182.81.42 (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Genres
For future reference, here is what the majority of sources have said:

House
 * The Independent: "Rain on Me", a tight three minutes of house euphoria
 * Pitchfork: Over a club-ready rush of early ’90s house pop
 * Yahoo!: The house music banger
 * MTV: shimmering house production
 * USA Today: throws it back to '90s house music
 * Billboard: gobbling up house and disco
 * Attitude: takes cues from '90s house anthems
 * The Guardian: the 90s house pop of the Ariana Grande duet Rain on Me
 * The Independent: the house-pop chorus

Dance-pop
 * Billboard: The dance-pop duet
 * NPR Music: "Rain On Me" is Gaga at her electronic-dance-pop most
 * Vulture: it's Gaga in peak dance-pop form
 * Page Six: the dance-pop track
 * Variety: trend of joyful dance-pop, add Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande’s “Rain On Me,”
 * The Independent: There’s a heavy dose of early Nineties dance-pop here
 * Slant Magazine: The house-inflected dance-pop tune

Disco
 * People: the funky, disco dance track
 * Billboard: gobbling up house and disco
 * The Muse: The latest from Chromatica is a smoldering disco song
 * Metro: a cathartic, disco triumph
 * Irish Independent: The disco-tinged song
 * tinged doesn't count. ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }-


 * PopMatters: "Rain on Me", a pulsating hard disco collaboration with Ariana Grande

French house element
 * Slant Magazine: French house-indebted dance song
 * "indebted" basically means inspired so no its not french house ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }-


 * W: French style of House music from the '90s
 * the article says borrows from so no its not french house ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }-


 * The Independent: heavily inspired by French house
 * Heavily inspired does not mean it is ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }-

Electropop element
 * Entertainment Tonight: the electro-pop tune
 * Attitude: a euphoric electro-pop banger

Eurodance element
 * Stereogum: conjures up bygone Eurodance aesthetics
 * conjuring, meaning coming up with/reminding of so no not Eurodance. ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }-


 * musicOMH: Rain On Me is Eurohouse-pop melodrama (Eurohouse is another word for Eurodance)
 * nope, Eurohouse is a style of house music, which generally originated in Europe anyway ≫ Lil- Unique1 -{  Talk  }-

LOVI 33  18:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Year-End Chart Positions
Here are some year-end placements for Stupid Love and Rain On Me which still haven't been added to the Wiki:

Cyprus Stupid Love - #34 Rain On Me - #24 https://www.mixfmradio.com/musics/mi...-of-2020-170/2

Bolivia Stupid Love - #91 Rain On Me - #46 http://charts.monitorlatino.com/top1...olivia/general

San Salvador Stupid Love - #32 Rain On Me - #64 http://charts.monitorlatino.com/top1...lvador/general

Honduras Stupid Love - #72 http://charts.monitorlatino.com/top1...nduras/general

Mexico Rain On Me - #48 http://charts.monitorlatino.com/top1...Mexico/general

Paraguay: Stupid Love - #53 Rain On Me - #44 http://charts.monitorlatino.com/top1...raguay/general

Chile: Stupid Love - #67 http://charts.monitorlatino.com/top1.../Chile/general — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndz94 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Alternate cover
In my opinion the alternate cover should be used here, especially it was asked before to add it. In article about "Trollz" there is an alternate cover added without any sentence in article about it, so I don't see your point with your explanation. The only thing that actually might prevent it from being used is that the photo was taken by the same photographer on the same photoshoot as the original, however I think it's distinct enough to be used. infsai (dyskusja) 19:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the "Trollz" cover as well, because it blatantly fails WP:NFCCP point 3a, minimal number of items. The original cover and the alternative are so similar that the alternative isn’t needed because the original already conveys enough information. I have yet to see the alternative "Rain on Me" cover, I will look at that now. D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 19:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can’t find the image in the source provided, as the link is broken. I get this message when I click on the link: 404 PAGE NOT FOUND. THE PAGE YOU REQUESTED DOES NOT EXIST. CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE SHOPPING. If there comes a time where the link is fixed/a correct link is given and I can actually see the image with my own eyes on a web page, I’ll give my support to it being used. The only thing is that I can’t verify the image is real. D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 19:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, it seems I accidently gave wrong (not archived) link. Here it's an archive version of page. infsai (dyskusja) 20:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In this case, similarity is not something we should consider when determining whether to use non-free content. The primary purpose of including a cover art is to provide visual identification for readers. The original cover art, which is the primary image associated with the single, can already (and is the best candidate to) fulfill that purpose. Therefore, no other covers should be added, no matter how distinctly different they may be, unless notability can be established, for example, if the vinyl cover happens to be the subject of multiple articles. Hayman30 (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, thanks for the clarification! D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 03:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Hayman, it's not justified. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 20:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Just because a random IP user requested it be added doesn’t mean it should be, and definitely doesn’t mean in fulfilling that request you can disregard WP:NFCC, which is a legal policy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that holds, and definitely doesn’t invalidate my point, and I don’t think you my point at all. Cover arts are non-free media, they can only be used on Wikipedia under very strict guidelines as laid out at WP:NFCCP. On Wikipedia, a cover art is used for visual identification of a recording, as it helps readers to easily find what they’re looking for. Most of the time, the original cover is the primary image associated with the recording, therefore it is usually chosen to be placed at the top of the Infobox. As mentioned in the documentation of Template:Extra album cover, one should ensure that they comply with the non-free content criteria when using the template, which includes not using multiple non-free images when one would suffice. For this single, the original cover art is sufficient for the purpose of visual identification, hence no other covers should be added. An alternative cover should only be added if it is notable, for example, if it is special enough to be the subject of multiple sources. This is determined by the sources, not by us as Wikipedia users, hence “distinctiveness” is not a factor that is at play here. Hayman30 (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I added it since noone replyed to that IP, but if you say it's not justified then okay. I won't fight for that one, because I was clearly non right, and I'm sorry. infsai (dyskusja) 20:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Silence does not imply consent, and it is your responsibility to review relevant policies and guidelines before uploading non-free media, instead of doing whatever people ask you to and then shifting the blame when you’re being confronted. And it’s not just me saying it’s not justified, it’s not my opinion that the cover shouldn’t be added. NFCC is a legal policy that we must abide by. An apology is not necessary, but just keep these in mind the next time you want to add alternative covers to an article. Hayman30 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)