Talk:Shake It Off

Stubby section in the article
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that there is a small section pertaining the Taylor’s Version of the song, that is stubby compared to other sections. Furthermore, there is a citation needed tag, something that should not even be in the article itself (It’s featured). If it isn’t resolved, I’m afraid I’ll have to put it under review  Brachy 08  (Talk) 09:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed the whole section since the album's track-list is not yet revealed so the info that it "is part" on the album or that it's subtitled "(Taylor's Version)" is OR and can't be sourced. Gained (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Brachy 08  (Talk) 23:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2023

 * 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: not moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Shake It Off → Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song) – In 2023, the pageviews of Shake It Off and the redirect Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song) compared to Shake It Off (Mariah Carey song) and Shake It off (disambiguation) were at a ratio of less than 10:1. This is not enough to establish that there is a primary topic in my opinion. In fact, in January 2023, there were a couple days when Shake It Off (Mariah Carey song} received 50% of the pageviews of Shake It Off despite being released a decade earlier and Swift approaching the height of her fame. The 2016 move discussion was flawed as it was largely based on the Swift song's higher RIAA certifications, but this neglects the fact that in 2005 the music industry was far different than 2015 and digital downloads were just starting up. Shake It Off (Mariah Carey song) was at number two on the US Billboard Hot 100 for six weeks in 2005; for all we know, if it was released in the digital/streaming era like Swift's, Carey's song would be certified diamond too. The singles charts/industry, at least in the US, were almost 100% based on radio airplay, so Carey's song is inevitably going to have lower certifications. Shake It Off (disambiguation) should be the primary landing page as there is no primary topic. Shake It Off does not meet WP:PT1 based on pageviews nor WP:PT2 because its notability is not substantially greater. It might be some amount more notable, but I don't think it is so substantial as to be the primary topic. Heartfox (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2023 (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.
 * Oppose based on page views |Shake_It_Off|Shake_It_Off_(disambiguation). I respect the effort put into the nomination, but the bar for a primary topic has never been that high, in my experience; certainly nothing like 10:1 is required. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - in terms of longterm significance I'm not sure there's much difference, but the page views are a clincher for the common usage criterion. The Taylor Swift song is the one that readers are predominantly seeking. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Adumbrativus. Rlendog (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above points. At least to a modern Wikipedian, Taylor Swift's song would be the primary topic. Wasabi OS (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)