Talk:The Way (Ariana Grande song)

Correction on one part. She isn't the first female solo artist to debut on the top 100. Demi Lovato debuted at number one way before she did in 2009 with Here We Go Again.

Before the dust settles on this one, someone is going to have to note that the beat is sampled from Big Pun allowing this pop song to have hip-hop cross-over elements like a MAc Miller Rap, the "Ay" at the end of each verse, and the simple hooks.shiznaw (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding R&B to the list of her genres. The full portfolio of the artist's songs do not fall within the spectrum of R&B. Simply because she had a song made for her to sing with R&B overtures does not mean that she is an R&B artist.shiznaw (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone else noticed that the Jabberwockies seem to be the dance group in the video. There is a cut to them where they are all wearing their masks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.152.234.85 (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please address the rankings of sale numbers. Beyonces album pushed everything down.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on The Way (Ariana Grande song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130709004857/http://ca.7digital.com/artist/ariana-grande-mac-miller/release/the-way to http://ca.7digital.com/artist/ariana-grande-mac-miller/release/the-way
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130806113710/http://www.amazon.com:80/The-Way/dp/B00BUI7AKE to http://www.amazon.com/The-Way/dp/B00BUI7AKE/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130609005517/http://www.amazon.com:80/gp/product/B00CYSX3NC to http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CYSX3NC

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Critical Reception
It's customary that for every song on the wikipedia, that a summary of the critical response is placed at the beginning of the section, which is then followed by the actual reviews. It's a summary, therefore it is made up from the reviews themselves, which count for the source. A summary doesn't have a source - that goes against the point of a summary. Can people please stop changing the summary. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.239.210 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is synthesis. Various reviews say various things. We include that material and cite it. You are adding what source A says to what source B says and deciding that, taken together, they mean (whatever). Let's call that "C". That's A + B = C. Which is WP:SYN.
 * Further, you have other problems:
 * Your interpretation is sometimes at odds with another's interpretation.
 * The word "universal" does not mean what you think it means. "universally acclaimed by music critics" means that absolutely every music critic in the world enthusiastically praised the song. There is no way to support such a claim. A single review by a little known critic in a local paper that merely liked -- but did not love -- the song would make this untrue. Universal: "of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases."
 * You like to say "many". This is vague and problematic. Please see Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch.
 * You are edit warring. Having been reverted several times on several articles and asked to discuss the issue on those articles' talk pages, you have finally decided to discuss the issue, after reverting to your preferred versions. Ignoring all previous attempts at discussion, you've started a new topic. Nice.
 * You have decided that personal attacks are a good approach. It is not. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have decided that personal attacks are a good approach. It is not. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just about every other song on the wikipedia has a summary of the critical reception, why is this suddenly changing for Ariana's music and not everyone else's? You're inputting your person bias into this. If you're so persistent on changing the wikipedia completely and removing the summary at the beginning (which was handy by the way), then why aren't you doing it for every song on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.239.210 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't care that it is synthesis, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia should change its policy for you.
 * You disagree with other editors' interpretations. We should go with your interpretation.
 * You have your own definition of "universal". English should change to match your definition.
 * You don't care about our guidelines for vague wording. Wikipedia should change for you.
 * Do you see a pattern here? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Notice how you didn't respond to my statement saying "why is this suddenly changing for Ariana's music and not everyone else's? All the other people I have looked at on wikipedia still have the regular critical reception section, so why is it that only Ariana's is changing? Do you have a bias? Also, I never put universal acclaim, I simply put acclaim, so that's something else you've got wrong. However, so many songs on the wikipedia do have universal acclaim when they've got one or two mixed reviews. It's a generalisation. Also, there's no interpretation to disagree with, since you've removed it. It's literally just a summary - it doesn't need a source, the reviews themselves are the source e.g. above 8/10 is considered "universal acclaim" and above 9/10 is considered "widespread acclaim." There's no need to change it now. Some people just prefer to read those instead of the entire section. Why are you changing this now when it's been like that for years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.239.210 (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't be everywhere at once. As you've no doubt noticed, I am not the only one removing this synthesis.
 * If "everyone" you've looked at still has this synthesis, you haven't looked very far. Yes, there are problems on other articles. That does not mean they should be here. The policy is WP:SYN. Please discuss it.
 * You use lots of definitive words that don't apply. Like "universally". In denying this, you said you "never" put universal acclaim. That's another difinitive word that does not apply. That "generalisation" states something that is simply not true. It's not a matter of "interpretation", it's the simple definition of the word. It is a conclusion not stated by any of the sources. It is synthesis. Please discuss the policy.
 * Your "summary" is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. It's synthesis. This is the policy. Please discuss it.
 * 8/10 is "universal" (EVERYBODY) and 9/10 is "widespread"? I assume that 10/10 is a "small majority" and 7/10 is "everybody and then some". Where did you get this contradictory scale?
 * I'm changing it now because I noticed now that there are claims repeatedly added to this article contrary to our policy.
 * At present, the WP:CONSENSUS is that WP:SYN is policy and your additions run afoul of this in several articles. Several articles have been semi-protected to stop your additions. Several editors have been reverting your edits. Rather than pushing this absurd idea that I, the other editors reverting you and the admins protecting the pages all have some kind of bias against the singer, you will need to discuss the policy. You will need to establish a local consensus that it does not apply here or a wider consensus that these articles should be exempted from the policy for some reason. Otherwise, the claims stay out. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Why are you going through all the trouble of changing something that has been going for years on wikipedia. I went through the pages of several different artists, their albums and their singles etc. and they ALL had "critical reception has been..." for every section. All of them (maybe slightly different wording.) Why are you so persistent in changing something on the wikipedia that's been there for years? It makes things easier, and it's going to be hard to delete it from EVERY song, so why bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.239.210 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please discuss WP:SYN. Do feel your addition is NOT synthesis? Do you feel this handful of articles should be exempt? Do you simply not care? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You're completely avoiding the question. Explain why only Ariana is getting all her critical responses removed, yet no other artist on the entire wikipedia is. You're letting your bias get in the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.239.210 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am removing the synthesis because it is synthesis. I am doing this in countless articles and have been doing so for quite some time. Bring up my contributions and look for the WP:SYN links. I am not alone. This is not about "Ariana". It's not about Heaven (Emeli Sandé song), Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising, Godzilla (2014 film), Like a Prayer (album), What Do You Mean?, 25 (Adele album), Blank Space... etc. It is about Wikipedia's policy.
 * Please discuss WP:SYN. Do feel your addition is NOT synthesis? Do you feel this handful of articles should be exempt? Do you simply not care? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You're still not answering the question of why. And saying it violates that policy is not a valid answer. It will literally take years to do every page on the wiki, and fans are going to fight back to a lot of it. The summary made things a lot easier and you're removing it. Why? What's the point? It's too much effort for not enough payoff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.239.210 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The editors who have reverted you on this (including me) are editing according to policy. You are unwilling to discuss policy. Perhaps you are on the wrong project.
 * You have been blocked from editing several other articles for your edit warring on this same point. If necessary, we can semi-protect this article as well.
 * Last chance: Please discuss WP:SYN. Do feel your addition is NOT synthesis? Do you feel this handful of articles should be exempt? Do you simply not care? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's your choice to start enforcing this policy that hasn't been used for years, but keep in mind that you'll have to go through literally every song, album, tour and film on the entire wikipedia to make this justified. Is it worth the effort? If not, feel free to change it back and leave it as it was (which to be honest was a lot easier.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.239.210 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SYN "hasn't been used for years"?!?! Wow. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you disagree with me? Because literally every popular film and song on the wikipedia has a generalisation and the beginning of the critical response section, or a 'synthesis' as you keep calling it. All of them have one. So tell me, if it has been used in years, and I'm in fact incorrect, why does every film and song have a "this song/film received x reviews by critics"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.239.210 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 21 May 2016‎


 * You're wasting time, 86.x. If you see unsourced interpretations of reviews (i.e. those that are not sourced by Metacritic or another reliable source) then you should help Wikipedia out and remove them, instead of using them as a basis to continue violating Wikipedia policy. Interpreting sources to reach a conclusion not stated by any of them is synthesis, which is not allowed. Period. You will be blocked if you continue to edit war over this. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Literally every" would mean literally all of them. The articles semi-protected because of your edit warring clearly do not have the statement. So, yes, I disagree.
 * "All" means all of them. This is clearly not true.
 * "Why does every film and song have a "this song/film received x reviews by critics" Not every film does. Some do and it should be removed if it does not have a source supporting the claim. Others don't have it and are fine the way they are.
 * You see, that's the problem with your synthesis. You, like, literally add things that literally are not true. Then, someone else comes along and says "Like, OMG, you are like sooooo totally wrong. It's not 'mixed-to-well-blended reviews', it's 'the most greatestest bestest reviews in the whole entire history of the world'". You literally can't understand that your opinion is not everyone's opinion. Citing bare facts (without synthesis) fixes this. "Every critic in the whole entire world loves this song and can't shut up about how awesome it is" is not a fact that you can demonstrate. "Joe Blow of Pop Songs No One Will Remember Next Year said it is 'kinda catchy'" is verifiable. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you not understand a hyperbole? 'Every' can be used to describe a very large majority. Also, seems as though I can't put 'this song garnered acclaim', why can't I put 'this song generally received acclaim.' This implies that a few disagreed but most people acclaimed it, seems as though you need everything to be literal. There is nothing but fact in that statement. So why can't I use that, it's not synthesis as it has a source - the reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.239.210 (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an excyclopedia. When you say "literally", please be sure you literally mean literally. "Universally" means universally. "Every" means every. Acclaim is subjective.
 * You cannot say something "implied" something other than what it said and they say it is "nothing but fact".
 * You clearly do not understand WP:SYN. It does NOT have A source. It has several sources that say several things thay ''you have merged together to say something that none of the sources individually say.
 * You have been reverted by 4 editors and asked to stop by 2. There is nothing more to discuss here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Way (Ariana Grande song). 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6GuWJIOEO to http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?content_selector=riaa-news-gold-and-platinum&news_month_filter=5&news_year_filter=2013&id=C19496E7-CEC0-C453-D8A1-BD80E56E610F

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Indiscriminate list of performances
disagreed with my removal of a random assortment of performances of this song. This section is an indiscriminate list of trivial performances, as I explained.

Yes, artists perform their singles at concerts and on various TV shows. A small number of those performances might be notable. A good indication would be coverage in independent reliable sources about the song well after the fact. Yes, everyone writing about Friday's baseball game will probably say who sang the "Star Spangled Banner" at the game. 3 months later, it's obvious that it just doesn't tell us anything about the song to know that it was once performed on October 5, 2019 at Corporate Sponsor Park. Hendrix closing out Woodstock with the "Star Spangled Banner"? That's probably relevant.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The selection we have here is indiscriminate. Yes, some of them are cited. From published interviews, I can cite what Grande ate for lunch on a particular day, what she was wearing and that she hiccoughed after drinking some lemonade. That is indiscriminate information.

A source discussing the concert you went to last Thursday will probably list the songs performed, what the performer was wearing, who played drums, special effects used and a whole lot of other information. None of that belongs in articles about the various songs, drum, the name of the drummer, pyrotechnics, Citizens Bank Park, the artist's article, Lamé (fabric), Thursday, etc. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this conversation to the talk page. I reverted your edit because you took out the entire section without stating any extensive reasons about your actions. I agree with your points that most of the performances given in the article are redundant to the casual reader. However, it also lists some key information regarding performances that would have an impact on the song, such as on the 2013 VMAs, notable TV shows and special guest appearances at concerts. I'll proceed to remove unnecessary performances from the article shortly. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)