Talk:New Romantics (song)

Single cover

@OZODOR: Can you please explain why you reverted me here without leaving an edit summary? I removed File:Taylor Swift - New Romantics (Official Single Cover).png on the basis that it does not meet criterion 8 of the non-free content criteria, which states:

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (emphasis mine)

The non-free use rationale on the file page states that The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art ... to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. This rationale would make sense if the cover was attached to a single that is sold to the public, which it is not. The reader therefore gains nothing from this image being here, which means we are using non-free content for no reason which defeats the purpose of Wikipedia being a free encyclopedia. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: I don't understand why this even matters if there are various single covers out there that don't have this same reasoning of why it should even be removed. For instance, look back at the covers for "Wildest Dreams" or "Out of the Woods" or even "Style!" None of them were really released for digital download as a single, but all of them use the cover art for promotion of the song. And these aren't the only ones out there either! But these were released as promotion towards the single releases, as well as being released from Taylor's official label. Even if you don't see this occurrence now, you'll find out for yourself in the future. OZODOR (Talk to me!) 03:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've actually tried to remove the non-free album cover at the "Style" article and replace the "Out of the Woods" cover with one that was actually sold... guess who reverted me both times? You did. Bringing up other articles is a moot point because that doesn't necessarily mean what they're doing is correct. If a non-free album cover isn't enhancing the reader's understanding - in this case, it's not meeting the fair-use rationale by helping the reader visually identify any of these works - it has no place on Wikipedia. Chase (talk | contributions) 13:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2016

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: Move. We have clear consensus that New Romanticism is primary for this term. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

---

New Romantics → New Romantics (song) – On 23 February, OZODOR performed an inappropriate cut-and-paste move from New Romantics (Taylor Swift song). WP:PTOPIC states: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." New Romanticism (members of the movement being called New Romantics) is an article with extensive book sourcing that suggests it is likely to have more long-term significance than this Swift song. (No other notable songs share this title, so I don't see the need for additional disambiguation.) Chase (talk | contributions) 20:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• New Romanticism is the primary topic here. There's one other song (a 2015 single by Hands Like Houses) but if Stand by Me (song) doesn't need further disambiguation when there's an Oasis song with the same name (#2 in UK chart; the album it's on, and other singles from that album, all reached #1) then this doesn't. Peter James (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Reasonable compromise. SSTflyer 09:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Question this digital bonus track was only #71. Is that better or worse than New Romantics (Hands Like Houses song)? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think so. At least notability has clearly been established for this song. SSTflyer 14:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support it is much more likely that New Romanticism is the primary topic (at least for now) given how much more attention it has gotten over this song. No prejudice against moving it back if the song gains more attention later on, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 30 March 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Romantics (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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160410171100/http://taylorswift.com/news/272353 to http://taylorswift.com/news/272353
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416034409/http://taylorswift.com/news/272843 to http://taylorswift.com/news/272843

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Taylor Swift importance

Given that Rolling Stone considers this the second best song in her career to date, shouldn't this have higher than "low" importance in WikiProject Taylor Swift? I am asking here rather than changing this as I must admit that I am not that familiar with WP Taylor Swift's importance ratings. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@HĐ: ^ --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Taylor Swift

• ... that the magazine Rolling Stone listed the song "New Romantics" by singer-songwriter Taylor Swift as one of the best songs of the 2010s decade? Source: "The 100 Best Songs of the 2010s". Rolling Stone. December 4, 2019.
  • ALT1:... that the title of the song "New Romantics" by singer-songwriter Taylor Swift is a reference to the New Romantic cultural movement? Source: several, cited within article i.e. Slate and Rolling Stone

• Comment: For a "bonus track" that received little coverage upon its parent album's release, its inclusion in Rolling Stone list of the best songs of the decade is quite an astonishing achievement.

Improved to Good Article status by HĐ (talk). Self-nominated at 02:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC).

• @HĐ: This is your first DYK nomination, correct? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I think so. For my past GAs the DYKs were often nominated by someone else, so this will be my first time if I remember correctly... HĐ (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• @HĐ: Awesome. Just wanted to be sure that we were good on DYK QPQ (<5 nominations doesn't need QPQ) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Satisfies newness requirement (GA on 9/28) and length requirement. Article is well written and uses citations appropriately. Earwig detects no copyvio/plagiarism issues. Hook facts are interesting and short enough, though I recommend the primary hook, as the alt hook is not as strong IMO and is likely to divert many of the views to the article on the cultural movement. Primary hook fact confirmed with online sources. Source for alt1 hook won't let me view without subscription (strange, since both are RS) but AGF is appropriate. QPQ not required per SandDoctor's discussion above. Cbl62 (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Also photo has PD license and shows up well, making this a good candidate for the lead hook spot. Cbl62 (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Just out of curiosity... what does QPQ mean? I'm new here so I'm absolutely oblivious on these terms... HĐ (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

QPQ ("quid pro quo") is the obligation to review a hook when you nominate a hook, but as per the discussion above, you don't have to do that as you're still a DYK newbie. Cbl62 (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote ALT0, but it just reads like more kudos for Taylor Swift's career. If it really is a surprising fact, why don't you say so in the hook? Like:
• ALT0a: ... that while some critics panned "New Romantics" by Taylor Swift, Rolling Stone named it one of the best songs of the 2010s decade? Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, as I noted above, given the song's initial exclusion from the tracklist, its appearance on the list is quite astonishing... Still, if it needs something more interesting to emphasise, then I'd like to alter it to your suggestion, HĐ (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, HD. But you could also say any other contrasting fact in the hook. I don't see its exclusion from the tracklist, but if it was, you could use that as the first clause in the hook: ... that despite its initial exclusion from the tracklist ... Yoninah (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Ping again @HĐ:. Yoninah (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I'd recommend something like ... that despite being excluded from the standard edition of 1989..., HĐ (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

alt0a is also supported by in-line citations such that it passes as well. Both alt 0 and alt0a are approved. I leave it up to the queue creator to decide which is preferable. Cbl62 (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• @HĐ: So you want to go with this wording?
• ALT1: ... that despite being excluded from the standard edition of 1989, "New Romantics" by Taylor Swift was named one of the best songs of the 2010s decade by Rolling Stone? Yoninah (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Yes, that sounds just fine! Thank you for your patience, HĐ (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. @Cbl62: could you review ALT1 please? Yoninah (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

In-line citation confirms it was excluded from the standard edition of the album (limited to a deluxe edition), so alt1 meets our standards. Cbl62 (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) — MaterialWorks 23:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

---

New Romantics (song) → New Romantics – Per WP:DIFFPLURAL. New Romantic is a distinct topic. Ambiguity can be solved by a WP:HATNOTE. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Aren't New Romantics simply members of the New Romantic movement? In most cases, plurals redirect to singular topic names on Wikipedia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose: The "New Romantics" is a group of people. The song title references that group of people and does not displace their notability. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think New Romantic is poorly titled and should probably be moved to something like New Romantic movement. (Note: This is solely on the grounds of preferred title; I am not making any claims about primary topic.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • In fact, it should probably be moved to New Romantics! That was how it was most commonly seen. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I'll note that List of New Romantics currently exists. Wikipedia is not a source; however, this does seem to suggest that New Romantic also exists in the plural. 162 etc. (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. New Romantics is often seen as a term for those who followed the New Romantic movement and is the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 14 November 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.