Talk:Rare (Selena Gomez album)

Title?
What source are we relying on for the title? The source backing up the intro sentence says it has yet to receive a title. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Target deluxe bonus cover art
The target deluxe bonus edition had a different cover art can be found here on the official target website: https://www.target.com/p/selena-gomez-sg2-target-exclusive-cd/-/A-79228621 Ilai48 (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Singles
I think Lose You To Love Me is the only song that should be considered a single. Rare was only called a single by Billboard and it has no radio date so I don't think it should be considered a single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mRiddlee (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Rare is considered a promo single. PopFreakNena (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Personally, Look At Her Now is not a single and should be removed, while Rare is yet to be confirmed a single. The main reason why people consider them to be singles is probably because they received a music video. Shrewd0307 (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this counts as a valid source but in an interview with Zach Sang she stated that LYTLM was the first single and she hasn't figured out what the second one was gonna be yet. Froyo Fox126 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Wait so Dance Again is not considered a single with a video out but LAHN is for the same thing? Acr9709 (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020
Can you link composer David Ciente (Ring) to his wikipedia page "https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ciente" 92.80.221.137 (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅, but be aware it's an doing this; the article doesn't exist on English WP. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Dance Again
Since there is a discrepancy regarding Dance Again's status, maybe the users that are REPEATEDLY EDIT-WARRING should take it to this talk page. Froyo Fox126 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is it not a single but LAHN is Acr970901 (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Top 200 Albums chart
[copied from User talk:Ojorojo]: "That chart is as valid as any other, and I don’t know why you are so fixated in just deleting it off Rare’s page when there are literally a bunch of other pages that still have it in the charts tab. Acr970901 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stone Top 200 Albums chart has been identified as a chart which should not be used. It was added to WP:BADCHARTS on April 8, 2020, following the discussion at WT:CHARTS. They are in the process of being removed from articles; you can help by deleting them when you see them. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)"

—Ojorojo (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Gomez buying copies of her own album?
Should this paragraph be included in the article? KyleJoan talk 07:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be. WhoAteMyButter ( 📬 │ ✏️ ) 08:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, BuzzFeed is regarded as highly inconsistent per WP:RSP, so it is arguable whether it is appropriate to treat the lone BuzzFeed article that supports the addition as a credible news piece. Not only that, attaching that the album did reach number one in the same paragraph implies that Gomez buying it had an effect on its chart position, which isn't in any reliable source. KyleJoan talk 08:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The source has enough media (specially reactions among the GP) which clearly can be considered as criticism and it doesn't seem to be an arguable fact.(buzzfeed isn't an unreliable source per WP:RSP). cc: the final sentence which didn't possess any source was later added to the paragraph by another user,no opinion on whether it's necessary or not. Jennythute678 (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While there's no consensus that BuzzFeed is unreliable, there's no consensus that it is reliable either. Furthermore, WP:DUE advises that in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, so let's do that. How prevalent in reliable sources is the viewpoint that Gomez was criticized for supposedly buying copies of the album and/or asking people to stream it? KyleJoan talk 14:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in support of the viewpoint of on this issue, per WP:DUE and WP:RSP, and the arguments presented by said-user. Not to mention, couldn't WP:ISNOT could apply here, as the BuzzFeed article is a glorification of self-promotion by Gomez herself, and she is hardly the only article to go out and purchase multiple copies of her album, and is hardly going to be the last. I fail to see the relevance of its inclusion in the article.   livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 15:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

How can the article be improved?
In the third opening paragraph it mentions that Rare was viewed as "easy" by some critics however this is ignored in the critical reception section. Currently the critical reception section is very one-sided. Jayla P (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Rare Deluxe
is claiming Rare Deluxe was "re-issued" with no sources to back him up. Please provide a Billboard/Official Charts Company or literally any credible source, which designates "Rare (Deluxe)" as a "re-issue"; otherwise, it would constitute pure WP:OR. BawinV (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Per Infobox album, it states: Do not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album. Per Consequence of Sound, it states: "The expanded reissue of Rare features the album's 13 original songs, plus three new ones." A source—which I did not need an example of, by the way, which was not assuming good faith on your behalf—does not need to explicitly state "re-issue" or "re-release" for a subsequent pressing of an album, released post-dating the original release, to be classified as such, especially in today's musical climate, where expanded editions/re-issues can be made within minutes on streaming platforms, a-la Apple Music and Spotify.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 14:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is misinterpretation of what the template states. "Boyfriend" was released a single AFTER the deluxe edition was released. It doesn't constitute the case where artists *add* their previously standalone singles to album deluxes. What you stated applies to "It Ain't Me", "Fetish", "Bad Liar" etc., not for "Boyfriend". BawinV (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No offense, it is you who is mis-interpreting what the templates states. "Boyfriend" (Selena Gomez song) was released the same day as the deluxe edition of Rare, both of which came post-the original release date. You asked for a source calling the deluxe edition a re-release (which it is), one was provided, and now you are still attempting to ignore it (while listing off on another tangent, which has nothing to do with the discussion, honestly) as to include the song in the infobox, where it does not belong per the template above. You might want to visit the Reissue page, which states (explicitly): In the music industry, a reissue (also re-release, repackage or re-edition) is the release of an album or single which has been released at least once before, sometimes with alterations or additions. Rare was re-issued with alterations to both the track listing and its cover art. Per said-definition, the deluxe edition of Rare is a reissue in the eyes of Wikipedia, with or without a source stating such. Rare was released in January 2020 (once before) and again in April 2020 (re-release).  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 18:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)