Talk:Revival (Selena Gomez album)/Archive 1

Translation (August 2015)
IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved since albums need officially confirmed release dates, titles, and full tracklists before they can have articles. Early close per incubation since this does not have a fully confirmed tracklist. Page has been salted since it has been repeatedly restored prematurely. Wait until a full tracklist is officially confirmed. (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Revival (Selena Gomez) → Revival (Selena Gomez album) – page created there because the other was prevented from editing – IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Question move seems reasonable but first asking User:Ritchie333 User:RHaworth User:Bgwhite, why was the page deleted 3 times "(R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace)"? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Me & The Rhythm"
Hi! The source HERE is PRIOR to Oct 2, so need new source to show it really happened. Oftimes songs & albums don't come out on planned dates. I was trying to find the Amazon source that they mentioned but US Amazon only shows it as an album track "Expected October 9, 2015" HERE. So they got that wrong. Now, I'm going to look at iTunes, see what's happening there. Trying to figure this out.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Hmmm, it's just a bit after midnight (early Oct 2 AM) in US Eastern time. And in the last few minutes Amazon changed it! Still showing as an album track, but October 2, 2015 & showing "not available". Whaaaaaaa, they just updated AGAIN, NOW, it's available! So will add Amazon as release source.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please
Hi everyone for all the users that can read this please don't add Me & The Rhythm as a single on the Revival album because it's just a promotional single. Thank You.Chandelia16 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2015
Track listing

Please change track listing to about, thus removing Gomez from all song writing credits except for Me and the Rhythm as according to https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx, that's the only song Gomez co-wrote on Revival. This includes deluxe tracks as well.

Cookieheaven1 (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Album cover
Is the version of the album cover shows Selena Gomez naked?

EDM?
I just wanted to ask you guys about the EDM influence on the record. While Entertaiment Weekly describes the album as a mixture of electronic dance music pop, Rolling Stones says that the album ditches EDM. Is it okay to not add EDM or due to the "electronic dance music pop" deffinition could be dance-pop or electropop at the infobox instead? Thanks. Anonpediann (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeating Metacritic's score in the ratings template
Since some editors are too obstinate to consider pretty basic, rational ideas about neutrality, I'll repeat it for them: Please avoid the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line of reasoning--there are numerous Wikipedia articles that are flawed or in poor condition, so that's not an excuse to repeat the same mistake--i.e. reiterating a score that is already elaborated at length in the section's prose--in other articles. There's no encyclopedic reason to repeat the same information in the same section. The ratings template was created as an optional supplement to the section's prose, meaning if it's not performing its supplementary function, there really isn't much of a reason to use it. Repeating a score is not supplementing anything. I cited the relevant guideline for writing a "Reception" section in my previous edit summaries --> "DO NOT present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it" (WP:CRIT) Dan56 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dan56, but I disagree. I always look for the MC in the Ratings template as a summary of the reviews. Then I read the expanded version in the article text to see how many reviews it is based upon and their textual equivalent for the score, such as "Generally favorable reviews". Is there a consensus at the Ratings template Talk to disallow its use in the table if mentioned in the article text? You will propably think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but take Charting for example. In many articles it is mentioned in the Lead, Commercial performance section and in the Charts table. Should all but one of those be deleted then also?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no article on Wikipedia that mentions every chart position from the charts table in the lead or article body. If there is, it's tedious writing. Your argument makes no sense for the average reader. How does it benefit readers to have the same score reiterated to them? How does repeating the text serve as supplementing the text? Dan56 (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The benefit in being in the table is a convenience to alert readers (at least myself) to look for the expanded explanation in the text (as is always found there in my experience). If I don't see it in the table, I presume that there is no MC for it at all. Otherwise what is the purpose of the MC shortcut addition to the template, if it can only be used if NOT mentioned in the article text, a scenario that I have never seen? I realize that it is the same material and do not give it undue weight. I don't say to myself, "Here's 77 MC in the table, here's 77 MC in the text...so I have to add them together for a total of 154 MC." I guess the way that I think of the table is as a summary of the material presented in the Critical reception section. It shows thumbnail MC and reviews Summarized in the table, which should be expanded upon in the article text.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, the ratings template was originally designed to facilitate the movement by BOTS of the ratings out of the infobox, where they were once placed in articles. When an article is lacking in prose on reviews/reception, the MC parameter in the template has been used, along with the other scores contained in the template temporarily. More importantly, readers are expected to read, not take a quick glance at a colorful, star-filled ratings template. So the reader would see in the second line, opening the paragraph on reviews, the aggregate score from Metacritic, which I don't understand why is so important to begin with. It's not essential to understanding how the album was received. Actual criticism (i.e. words) aid in understanding that more than a number that is open to interpretation. Dan56 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are insistent that the reader actually read the prose, then why do you remove ratings/scores from the prose? Should the prose not be a comprehensive source for information presented in the article? Why should the ratings template present new information not available elsewhere in the article? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because I understand the difference between interesting prose and tedious writing? Dan56 (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the Revival Tour page?
So it's been caught to my attention that the Revival Tour page no longer exists. This is really putting me in a salty mood after the improvements I put in that page and the fact an assumed IP address decided to vandalize and remove the page. Someone please help recreate the Revival Tour page and make sure it is semi-protected! Musicpoplover12 19:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2015
Please delete "Gomez" on track 3 called "Hands to Myself" on the writer(s) section because I don't see that she wrote the song.

Musicedit98 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Abi-Maria (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Revival (Selena Gomez album)
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 Revival (Selena Gomez album)'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 "Idolator": From Good for You (song):  From Same Old Love:  

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 ⚡ 20:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Greece chart
Hello. The greece chart link is dead. Could there be another link to it? AleD (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S.: The album has been certified Gold in Denmark. AleD (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Revival (Selena Gomez 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/9/music-review-selena-gomez-brings-her-a-game-to-rev/

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 23:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Revival (Selena Gomez 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/good-for-you-feat.-a%24ap-rocky/id1009411988
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://centrodedesarrollodigital.com/amprofonanual/100.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon?termGbn=week&hitYear=2015&targetTime=43&nationGbn=E
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925131747/http://www.5music.com.tw/cdtop.asp to http://www.5music.com.tw/CDTop.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://centrodedesarrollodigital.com/amprofonanual/100.php

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) 07:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Revival (Selena Gomez album)
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 Revival (Selena Gomez album)'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 "Notes": <li>From Same Old Love: </li> <li>From Good for You (song): </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 ⚡ 13:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

2 Deluxe Versions?
I got confused that there is 2 deluxe versions, i saw it on Apple Music and YouTube Music. I don't understand what's the differences. The track listing are the same, and the both deluxe version formats are the same. The only difference i noticed was the cover. Help me, please. SamieFrost22 (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)