Talk:Thank U, Next/Archive 1

Keep or delete

@Ss112: I am surprised you want to keep this redirect, especially after all the times you've fussed about some of the ones I've created. This song is not mentioned at List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande, and info about the album and song are speculative. There are 2 ongoing drafts. I'm not sure how this redirect helps at the moment, but not the end of the world whether kept or deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Those were redirects where the title was not mentioned at the article. I've redirected it to Ariana Grande because I've added a source there that says it's an album and a song. Grande literally posted that she was listening to a track titled "Thank U, Next", and mere minutes ago responded "Yes" to a fan on her Twitter asking if "Thank U, Next" was the last track on the album. We can't link to drafts from mainspace anyway, so until it's moved to mainspace, whether this ends up being for the song or album is fine as it's confirmed and sourced. Ss112 17:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Drafts

Resolved

There are currently 2 drafts: Draft:Thank U, Next and Draft:Thank You, Next. Shall we redirect one to the other? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The title with the spelt out "You" hasn't been confirmed anywhere, only "U", so I'd say we should move "Thank You, Next" to "Thank U, Next"...if that's a thing. Ss112 17:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: Maybe we should just redirect both to this live article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've redirected Draft:Thank U, Next, Draft:Thank U, Next (album), and Draft:Thank You, Next. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Resolved

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Thank U, Next (song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

put in the unconfirmed songs on the site which are remember and imagine JedazionFuller77 (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Unconfirmed Songs

Remember, Imagine

Redirects from unconfirmed songs?

Resolved

Extended content

I thought nominating all of these for speedy deletion without any discussion would be bad faith, so starting this section. Can someone explain where these redirects from unconfirmed song titles come from? Ariana is yet to confirm a tracklist so I'm confused. In My Head (Ariana Grande song) Ghostin (Ariana Grande song) Ghostin (song) Bad Idea (Ariana Grande song) NASA (song) 7 Rings (Ariana Grande song) 7 Rings (song) 7 Rings Seven Rings (Ariana Grande song) Seven Rings (song) Fake Smile (Ariana Grande song) Fake Smile (song) Bloodline (Ariana Grande song) Remember (Ariana Grande song) NASA (Ariana Grande song) Imagine (Ariana Grande song) Pinging Another Believer since he's the creator and Ss112 for his familiarity with such topics.--NØ 14:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC) I really don't think Another Believer should have made them. It's speculation based on words seen in a music video, which fans then took to be song titles because a similar thing happened with "No Tears Left to Cry" and song titles on Sweetener. It's speculation, not confirmed. Ss112 14:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Apparently there's a Fader article that speculated the same, but the only titles they mentioned are "Remember" and "Imagine". The rest of the song titles aren't even in the breathin video and come from a completely unconfirmed random tracklist that is being circulated by fans online. Those need to be deleted immediately--NØ 15:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC) These redirects were created when the article mentioned possible track titles, based on secondary coverage. I actually don't have a problem listing possible titles, when they are mentioned by sources (including MTV, Billboard, Teen Vogue, etc), and as long as the article's text says they are unconfirmed. The tracklist can be easily updated as titles are confirmed, and mentioning possible titles at least helps the folks who are searching for information about the album and its songs. Others may disagree, I'm just sharing why the redirects were created. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC) The mentions about them were removed here. As long as this article makes no mention of those song titles (and I agree it shouldn't since its pure speculation aside from maybe "Remember", "Imagine" and "Nasa"), these redirects are of 0 value and provide nothing to readers who will click on them.--NØ 21:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Gonna ping Ad Orientem to speedy delete these because I don't want to nominate them all individually and flood AB's talk page with the deletion notices.--NØ 21:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC) @Another Believer Just for clarity, you have no objection to deleting these redirects? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC) @Ad Orientem: Actually, my preference would be to keep them, but I'm not going to put up a fight if other editors disagree. I actually think they serve a purpose for people searching for information about the album and songs. Redirects are cheap, and they can always be deleted later. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)  Declined @ MaranoFan The only possible grounds for CSD would be G7 (author requests deletion) or G6 (uncontroversial). Neither applies. I suggest WP:RfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Well. I'm ok with keeping them since they're fairly uncontroversial. But this seems like a case of 'wanting to snatch the redirects before any other user makes them' instead of them serving any useful purpose at the time. Guess the rules are different for Grande on Wikipedia since her album, also, is being assumed to be the WP:Primary topic over the song (which is a #1 hit btw) already despite not being out yet.--NØ 08:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC) I don't look at creating redirects as a competition, but if I hadn't created these, someone else would have. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Seems "Imagine" and "NASA" have been confirmed via Twitter. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC) The tracklist has been released. I've struck all the redirects that make sense, leaving only "Remember" as possibly unnecessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC) I was gonna say, you should tag an admin and ask them to delete the Remember redirect. She first alluded to scrapping it, and it seemingly didn't make the tracklist because the "fun" song that replaced it is "break up with your girlfriend, i'm bored".--NØ 05:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)  Done I am going to go ahead and collapse this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2018

Add additional tracks: Remember Imagine

Both confirmed in the breathin' video on the train turnstiles 69.183.32.254 (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rumored track titles have been added to the article multiple times, and removed multiple times. Seems we're now waiting for confirmed track titles before updating the track listing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"7 Rings"

... has been confirmed as the next single. Starting to collect sources at Talk:7 Rings. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

I would like to edit the page so it tells when the pre-order is available. Sisters4lifebbg (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DannyS712 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Change title to Thank U, Next (album)?

I think changing the title to include (album) would help avoid confusion with the (also very popular) song. The same was done with Drake's Take Care (album) and Take Care (song). Flop453 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be changed to that. Moonlightfocus (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2019

to add the alternative cover Bernard Gilpin (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - Not different enough for fair-use to be justified for both. We've already given a summary about the difference in borders.--NØ 15:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"Break Up with Your Girlfriend, I'm Bored"

Starting to collect sources for "Break Up with Your Girlfriend, I'm Bored", which Ariana Grande has said is the album's next singe, at Talk:Break Up with Your Girlfriend, I'm Bored. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Album Name Repeated Twice

The sentence under Singles heading mentions that "The album's title track was released as lead single from Thank U, Next on November 3, 2018 without prior announcements."

It should be transfused into "The title track was released as lead single from the album on November 3, 2018 without prior announcements."

For another pop record like Confident by Demi, the title song/second single from said album does not repeat its name multiple times.

Ceasing transmissions,

47.16.146.238 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 21:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2019

GUMBALL2004 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)I want to edit the Thank U, Next page because I saw a chart which needs to be included. Please accept my request.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

Hello, I am asking for a edit request since i don't have 500 edits yet, So i'm willing to add the "Composition" into the article and go a little more in detailed. Nocontrol101 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. DannyS712 (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"Bad Idea" at AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Idea (Ariana Grande song). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2020

You forgot to add the studio albums chronology, heres what it looks like 100.6.176.92 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding Imagine to singles section??

Should Imagine (Ariana Grande song) be listed as the 2nd single from the album now that it has been confirmed to be on it? Flop453 (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No, why would we do that when its a promotional single.--NØ 07:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes because she said it was a single, never a promotional single and on billboard it charted as a single. Needy us also a single now Shakira Ryan (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Shakira Ryan: You may want to weight in at this section.--NØ 17:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

imagine is a promo single. PopFreakNena (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Album covers

Good night! Since Ariana Grande said there will be two cover arts for the album, one for the digital version and other for the physical, do you think we should add the physical version into the main image on the infobox and the digital in a new section of "Alternative cover". What do you think?

Also, I have uploaded the physical version but I'm not allowed to edit, can someone add it?

BautyButera (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, these covers are not different enough to justify uploading both under the fair-use criteria. I've addressed the situation by adding a caption about the different borders. Please let me know if there's a problem with it. And you can refer to Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) for a prior example of a situation like this.--NØ 21:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The physical cover also removes the Japanese Parental Advisory label from what I can see on the Ariana Grande Store. Would it be useful to update the caption about that?

We use the cover without parental advisory labels in the first place. Also, I agree there's no justification regarding fair use in having both album covers. Nice4What (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes you should please add the darker cover Shakira Ryan (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Release date

The release date is February 8th, as confirmed by multiple trusted sources, including Ariana herself. The February 10th release date on iTunes is purely a preliminary measure to ensure the album doesn't come out internationally before it's supposed to. This is regularly done with pre-orders for major releases when the label plans to release the album at the same time around the world. PsychoBaritone (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done, Not only has she specifically tweeted out that the album will be released on February 8, but we also have a couple of reliable secondary sources confirming this: [1] [2].--NØ 06:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Universal has updated the amazon pages and it says Feb 8 Moonlightfocus (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Songwriting credits

Songwriting credits taken from iTunes column browser.

1. imagine Ariana Grande, Andrew Wansel, Nathan Perez, Priscilla Renea & Jameel Roberts
2. needy Ariana Grande, Tommy Brown, Victoria Monét & Tayla Parx
3. NASA Tommy Brown, Charles Anderson, Victoria Monét & Tayla Parx
4. bloodline Ariana Grande, Max Martin, Ilya Salmanzadeh & Savan Kotecha
5. fake smile Ariana Grande, Andrew Wansel, Nathan Perez, Priscilla Renea, Kennedi Lykken, Justin Tranter, Joseph W. Frierson & Mary Lou Frierson
6. bad idea Ariana Grande, Max Martin, Ilya Salmanzadeh & Savan Kotecha
7. make up Ariana Grande, Tommy Brown, Tayla Parx, Victoria Monét & Brian Malik Baptiste
8. ghostin Ariana Grande, Max Martin, Victoria Monét, Ilya Salmanzadeh & Savan Kotecha
9. in my head Ariana Grande, Brittany Chi Coney, Denisia Andrews, Andrew Wansel, Nathan Perez, Lindel Deon Nelson Jr & Jameel Roberts
10. 7 rings Ariana Grande, Tommy Brown, Charles Anderson, Michael Foster, Victoria Monét, Tayla Parx, Njomza Vitia, Richard Rogers, Oscar Hammerstein II & Kimberly Krysiuk
11. thank u, next Ariana Grande, Tommy Brown, Michael Foster, Charles Anderson, Tayla Parx, Victoria McCants, Njomza Vitia & Kimberly Krysiuk
12. break up with your girlfriend, i'm bored Ariana Grande, Max Martin, Ilya Salmanzadeh, Savan Kotecha, Kandi Burruss & Kevin Briggs

Requested move 28 January 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to change the current setup at this time, per the discussion below. This may be worth revisiting with additional data once the topics of the articles are no longer current events. Dekimasuよ! 02:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Thank U, Next → Thank U, Next (album) – I don't see conclusive evidence the upcoming album is more important than the released song as pageviews are higher for the song (918 000 vs 604 000). If Like a Virgin, Like a Prayer and Born This Way have no primary topic album vs. song, Thank U, Next shouldn't until there is a clear primary topic. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Pageviews [3]
• (Pageviews fo the other three cases: [4])
• Oppose per WP:TWODABS. The other cases mentioned have multiple meanings, whereas here are only choices are the song and album, so let's keep one as a primary with a hatnote for the other. Calidum 03:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

...Baby One More Time doesn't have other multiple (relevant) meanings; Like a Prayer doesn't have other multiple (relevant) meanings--in both cases disambiguation was not given because there are other topics, it was given due to the parity between album and song, see their RMs. In Like a Virgin everything is named after the song (even the album). So no, this is not a WP:TWODABS case, it is a WP:NOPRIMARY case. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We also have Blurred Lines vs. Blurred Lines (album) which denote the true definition of WP:TWODABS as a precedent [5] © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - "thank u, next" may be a #1 song, but the album has two #1 songs on it. Do the math. The album article will definitely be getting more views than the song one when it is released, which it will be in less than two weeks. I would have supported this move a few months ago when we basically knew nothing about the album and the tracklist and cover weren't out, but not now. Also, I hate to WP:CRYSTALBALL but Grande's albums are so extensively promoted with several singles that it is bound to eventually start getting more views than the song when the latter has completed its single run. This discussion is a waste of time if it concludes in a successful move.--NØ 03:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Nice4What (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support 918 000 vs 604 000 speaks for itself. If it was 700 000 vs 700 000 it'd be the classic TWODAB, but even at those numbers there's NOPrimary. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TWODABS. When there are only two articles that could use a given title, especially if they are related, it's rarely beneficial to create a dab page, because a hatnote serves the purpose just as well, without inconveniencing everyone who directly searches for the title. It can also be noted that in recent days the album has caught up with the song in pageviews. - Station1 (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per requester. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Albums are not necessarily the primary topic, especially not when the title tracks are huge hits in their own right. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support it's too presumptuous to say this album will be the primary topic when it hasn't even been released yet plus the title track is already a big thing on its own. No prejudice against revisiting the matter in 6 or 7 months, though. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as sources are transitioning from the song to the album. Do a quick Google search now, then when the album releases. ColorTheoryRGB CMYK 22:37, 2 February 2019 (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.

Digital vs physical cover

Isn't the physical cover version usually preferred over the digital version? Koyyo (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fan4Life: Do you have a source that states the pink "digital cover is the primary cover"? I'm not finding that anywhere; sounds like you just made that up. Koyyo (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Most sales are through streaming nowadays, no? Is this not the primary cover seen by listeners and also used by publications for the album? Maybe even advertisements? Seems like the black cover is just to make the physical release special. Nice4What (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A bit of that is speculation but I suppose you could be right. The other singles did have pink art too. Times are changing quickly so digital could be considered primary. I'm not sure. Koyyo (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please use the Physical copy because the darker theme fits the album better Shakira Ryan (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That is not how things work on Wikipedia.--NØ 15:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Content under background heading isn't relevant

Either the content under the background heading isn't relevant or it hasn't been tied into the development of the album properly. In it's current form it belongs only on Ariana's main wikipedia page not under the background heading of the thank u, next album page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apophis82 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems all pretty relevant to me, per WP:ALBUMSTYLE:

“ It should not be assumed that the reader is familiar with the artist's history and/or previously released albums. If it's necessary to put these items into context for the reader to further his understanding of later content in the article, a background section is suggested. This section should discuss previous occasions in the artist's history and important events that had an impact on the album. ”

Grammy performance?

Should the Promotion section mention her scheduled, but canceled, performance at the Grammy Awards?

Sources:

• https://variety.com/2019/music/news/ariana-grande-first-ever-grammy-1203135070/
• https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-47168089

---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. Koyyo (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Album Tracks

Can someone go ahead and make pages for (at least some of) the tracks on the album? Tomorrow the charts of various countries will be updated; the tracks will most likely chart. Also, each particular song was reviewed by at least one source. I see no reason to not make the pages now. Sixinchboca (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Song titles redirect to the album article. No need to to create song pages until they've received significant press coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sixinchboca: They will probably all chart because she's a very popular artist and this is a very popular album at the moment. That doesn't mean every song on the album is notable enough (WP:NM) to warrant an article for each. As of right now, the only songs that should have separate articles already do ("Imagine", "7 Rings", "Thank U, Next", "Break Up with Your Girlfriend, I'm Bored"). Koyyo (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't 7 Rings Also Sample Gimme the Loot? Edit requesting.

Well under the Sampling section of song listing, the song interpolates My Favorite Things from The Sound of Music but someone had forgotten to add that it also samples Gimme the Loot as it was performed by Biggie Smalls.

Travis Scott also sampled said song in Sicko Mode for his third full player Astroworld. So let another anon take this extended confirmed edit request.

That's all,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Saying the words "gimme the loot" doesn't make it a sample. Sicko Mode used the actual audio from the song. Nice4What (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It's more of a reference rather than a sample. MunRis • †alk 21:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

UK

The album is already silver in the UK. Can someone make a certification section? Sixinchboca (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong name in the personell-credits

Hi! My name is Mattias Bylund from Sweden. I arranged the strings and horns on "Thank you next". There's an error in the Tidal-listing, the saxophone players name is not "Wojtek Bylund"...his name (last name) is Wojtek Goral. Would be most appreciated if someone could change that - so the right person get the credit for his work. AND...the other saxophonists name is Tomas Jonsson (NOT Johansson)-(after that, delete this message... :-) All the best Svantem (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Mattias Bylund, horn arranger, Thank you, nextSvantem (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Portuguese Charts

Someone add peak: https://portuguesecharts.com/weekchart.asp?cat=a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfrancescosus (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Greek Charts

Someone add the Greek Charts for Albums: http://www.ifpi.gr/charts_en.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfrancescosus (talk • contribs) 16:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

imagine

Did Ariana ever actually say this was a promotional single? There are several sources that call it a single: Exclaim!, Vogue, Paste, Billboard, [6], The Fader, Stereogum, Forbes, Complex etc. Ariana's official lnkto also calls it a single. She also never said this was a promotional single when she announced its release on Twitter [7], and she has for her promotional singles in the past [8]. Moreover, "thank u, next" was also not sent to radio but no one disputes that it's a single. We shouldn't exclude imagine just because it commercially underperformed--NØ 15:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record, this was her response on Twitter to someone asking if it's a promo single, according to Teen Vogue. Prefall 15:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If she doesn’t want the word “promo” associated with it then we shouldn’t be calling it a promo single either. I just realised that the two sources that are currently being used for imagine, in this article, also call it a single and neither calls it a promotional single. I’ll go ahead and change it to a single if no one objects.—NØ 05:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

imagine RFC

The following discussion 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.

---

Should Imagine (Ariana Grande song) be listed as (A) a single or as (B) a promotional single. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC).—23:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please cast your !votes in the Survey along with optional very brief comments, but do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Back-and-forth discussion can be included in the Threaded Discussion (that’s what it’s for).—23:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• A - I give preference to the 10+ sources that call it a single, and Ariana's own tweet saying it’s not a promo single.—NØ 05:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• B - Ariana explicitly called 7 Rings the second single, various reliable sources have explicitly called Imagine a promotional single, Imagine was never pushed as a single, media outlets frequently misuse the word "single" (applying it to any song that isn't just an album track), and Ariana's tweet wasn't saying that Imagine is a single, it was saying that she doesn't like to call it a promo single and just wanted to release the song. Fan4Life (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• B - it is defined as a promotional single for her album. For example,Newsweek makes it quite clear: "the first promotional single to debut from Grande's upcoming fifth studio record, Thank U, Next,..." ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• A - per my explanation in the discussion below. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• B - got the radio push of a promo single, and has no official MV, nor the amount of money that 7r or TuN got put into their releases. Fits the definition to a T, as far as I can tell the only reason this discussion exists is because media outlets not specializing in music have listed it as a single despite it fitting the definition of a promo single. See also for sourcing purposes: Aoba47's list of sources below.Joel.Miles925 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• Here are some pretty reliable sources that describe "Imagine" as a promotional single: Forbes, Spin, Esquire, Slate, Complex, and Forbes again. I do see some sources refer to "Imagine" as the second single, but a majority of those were published at the time of the song's release when media outlets tend to refer to any release as an official/full single regardless if it is true or not. I am leaning toward identifying the song as a promotional single since more sources released after the song's release (and closer to the album's release) call it this. Also whether or not Ariana likes to call it a "promo" single or not does not automatically upgrade it to a single in my opinion. However, this (the uncertainty of what is a single or a promotional single) is and will mostly likely will remain an issue on Wikipedia, particularly given how easy it is to release music now. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. My primary concern is that there is a tweet from Ariana explicitly stating that she doesn’t want Imagine to be called a promotional single. She has also, to my knowledge, never stated that 7r was the “second” single or buwygfib was the “third”, she only referred to both as the “next” single while announcing them. So I’m afraid there is no reason for us to favour the “promotional single” wording which is supported by way less sources than just “single”. A few sources may have erroneously labelled it a promo single because Wikipedia had it listed as that for so long.—NØ 05:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am not sure if the tweet is enough to really prove anything either way. It is rather vague. Just because she personally does not like to call something a promotional single does not mean it was not treat that way by the record company. If you read the entire tweet, she refers to "Imagine" as only "a song that i'm dropping" so it may not even be a single at all if that wording is taken literally. Aoba47 (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I was alerted to this discussion via email. Before Aoba's message above, I also leaned in the direction of thinking from her tweet, that Ariana meant she just considers it a song she wanted to make available, rather than any type of single. She was responding to particular wording about calling it a "promo" single. I don't agree with it being a full single either. It looks like this is now a dispute over what some sources say versus some other sources. If I had to choose, I'd support it staying as is because it clearly didn't get a full push to be a single that the other songs from the record did. I also saw it mentioned above "Thank U, Next" wasn't sent to radio, but it's charting at pop and AC radio in the US and AFAIK, songs have to be released for radio airplay in America to chart on those charts. If not, then surely its presence on other countries' radio stations means it would have been released for airplay somewhere. Anyway, I don't wish to get involved in some long threaded discussion, just pointing this out and wanted to voice my opinion. Whatever consensus determines I will respect. Ss112 06:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I wonder if there could be an option added to the above discussion that this is just not a single at all. Ariana Grande's tweet points more into that direction than towards supporting a stance that it is a full single release. The tweet makes it sound like just a song that Grande wanted to make available for fans before the full album was released. I think that should be a viable C option. It is difficult to tell from third-party sources because some say it is a full single while others say it is a promotional one. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Forgive my ignorance, but is there a special significance to the label "promotional"? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Argento Surfer: Traditionally a promotional single does not receive the same amount of promotion as a regular single. This can range from the amount of radio airplay and live performances, whether or not a music video is filmed for it, and how much money a record label puts into promoting it. The separation was much clearer before digital releases and streaming. I hope that clears things up.Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• A promotional single receives less promotion? Talk about a misnomer.
• Since the meaning doesn't sound very precise, what's the benefit to a reader of including the adjective? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Argento Surfer: It benefits the reader because a single and a promotional single are two different things, particularly for releases in the pre-digital age. The distinction between a single and a promotional single has become pretty blurred lately though. There are a lot of different types of singles, including the "radio airplay only single" as another example. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: between your explanations, the article's current format, and what I read at Lead single, Single (music), and promotional single, I don't think the distinction carries much weight for modern music. I think it'd be more helpful for readers to just lump all types of singles together. An explanation of how its release was limited would keep readers apprised of its lack of promotion, and I wouldn't oppose mentioning in the prose that some sources described it as promotional. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Argento Surfer: I understand your point. I was somewhat leaning toward saying it was not a single altogether and just saying it was a song Grande released for the fans (according to her tweet), but it was sent out for radio play. I would bet (and this is completely my opinion) that Grande sent out the tweet partially because her record label promoted/marketed it as a promotional single, which is a term apparently she does not like for whatever reason. I agree though that it is important to always think about what does something add to a general reader's understanding of the topic. I would not be opposed to a section in the article with all of the singles put together. I am not sure how it would work for the infobox as only full commercial singles are put there (i.e. not promotional singles). This has been an issue for a lot of different articles. Makes me wish a more general RfC could be opened on the difference between singles vs. promotional singles and how they are represented in an article just so there can be some sort of standard to go by. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2019 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 08 March 2019

Hello! Can someone please, on the "Charts" section, add Ariana's peak on South Korean Albums Gaon? thank u, next peaked at #30 on the weekly chart

Source:

• http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=&targetTime=08&hitYear=2019&termGbn=week

Thank you Wasteitonme (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Korean Charts

The album debuted at #83 on South Korea's Gaon Monthly album chart with 1,406 sold in February. This needs to be added, I don't have 500 edits while actually logged in so I can't do it myself :P Source Leesandeul (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

“Needy” next single?

Performed at the iHeartRadio Awards and introduced by Pharrell as Grande’s “next big hit”, already called the next single by Elle—NØ 05:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Probably best to wait until an official confirmation about this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  +1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I see someone has already changed the Needy (Ariana Grande song) infobox to note single status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have been undone already. On another note, I have raised a move request on the talk page which you might be interested in.--NØ 19:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

add needy as the fourth single from the album, it was confirmed by Pharrell, and Elle magazine Shakiraeldorado (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done since it hasn’t been explicitly confirmed by a primary source. Pharrell didn’t use the word "single".—NØ 15:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Studio

The album was recorded at Jungle City and Germano (New York City), and also at Sterling Sound, New York. Nocontrol101 (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Monopoly as fourth single

Shouldn’t Monopoly be added as the fourth single? It was released and now is also added in the deluxe version of the album. Annaoue (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I support adding "Monopoly" (as well as "imagine" btw) as singles to the infobox. Ariana is the only artist who gets to have her flop singles excluded just because her fan base has a huge presence on Wikipedia. I produced a dozen sources which call Imagine a single in above sections but even that wasn’t enough to convince people to label it as such.NØ 16:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: There's already been a discussion on "Imagine" and the consensus was that it's a promotional single based on numerous sources calling it a promotional single, Ariana herself calling "7 Rings" the second single, and the fact that it wasn't pushed as a single. You clearly have something against Ariana, it's not about songs not being successful, it's about whether a song is actually a single and whether it's actually an official single from an album, "Everyday" flopped and is included because it's an official single from the album. Fan4Life (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Fan4Life, we act with consensus on Wikipedia. You’re risking another trip to the edit warring noticeboard if you keep enforcing your personal opinion without any discussion like you did here. Reply here and have a proper discussion or you may be reverted.—NØ 13:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I oppose adding "Monopoly" to the infobox as a single as it's not an official single from the album, it was released as a non-album single and was included on the Japanese deluxe edition at a later date. Singles from editions of an album that are exclusive to a particular territory or store (e.g. Target) are not considered official singles from the album, as was decided in discussions on "Focus" and "Jason's Song (Gave It Away)" and is also practice for other artists. Fan4Life (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I support adding "Monopoly" to the singles section. When singles are released to radio in one country only, they are considered singles, so why shouldn't bonus tracks that are released in one country be considered singles from said album? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Alternative cover

Should we add the physical edition as the alternative cover? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

No, as it’s almost the same and does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8.—NØ 20:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirect articles

Why do so many songs on this album have their own article? Most of the sources given are not about the specific song and are about the album as a whole. They should be redirected. Same goes for Sweetener. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan was permanently blocked as a SPI back in November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.161.226 (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Trap

Where is this called a trap album? Besides SPIN saying "thank u, next cracks with the stylistic influence of trap", I couldn't find another mention of trap within the listed sources. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2019

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: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Thank U, Next → Thank U, Next (album) – It has been nearly a year since the song was released and several months since the album was released; even with both pieces past their peaks earlier this year, Pageviews Analysis indicates that neither is the clear primary topic, with close (and alternating) numbers under this comparatively "normal" article traffic. It would be most effective to treat this situation in the same way that Oops!... I Did It Again is a disambiguation page for the song and the album. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Turning Thank U, Next into a disambiguation page benefits no one, as people looking for the song have to make the same amount of clicks and the ones looking for the album have to make more clicks. People who type "Thank U, Next" in the search bar will see both the articles pop up and be able to distinguish them as one of the titles contains "(song)".—NØ 17:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Above comment is exactly right. Someone looking for the song gets there as quickly through the hatnote as they would through a two-entry dab page. Station1 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral I find MaranoFan's argument very compelling, and I am not a big fan of the precedent of Oops!... I Did It Again (and Baby One More Time), at least from the perspective of a searcher. But setting an iffy primary topic (rather than noprimary) can have negative consequences in the form of mistargeted wikilinks. Browsing [[Thank U, Next]] wikilinks, a decent proportion (maybe 10%, as a very rough estimate) were meant to refer to the song. Making the base name a dab would negate any possibility of mistargeted links. So I'm on the fence on this one for now. Colin M (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The dab page for Oops!... I Did It Again lists more than just the Britney album and song, so that is useful. However making a dab page for two pages about music by the same artist is quite redundant. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Billiekhalidfan. Unreal7 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support when there isn't a clear primary topic, we cannot just assume people will more likely search for the album over the song or vice versa, especially when both became big in their own rights. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I think there needs to be some clarification, especially in the future. I also think it would help other editors/users link to the page they are talking about easier. User:NDfan173 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2019 (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.

Trap music as an influence

I think trap music is only an influence on this album, not a primary genre. Spin says the album has a "stylistic influence of trap", which certainly means that this is a trap-influenced album. Vulture says the album has a "minimalist approach to trap and R&B". An approach is to come near or nearer to something. It does not mean to be that something. Therefore, I think this is not a trap album, but a trap-influenced album. 𝔹𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕖𝕜𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕕𝕗𝕒𝕟 ^💬 03:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Billiekhalidfan has been indefinitely blocked as a sock.

Surprise album?

This article is included in Category:Surprise albums. But, was the album's release actually a surprise? The entry's prose does not suggest so, unless I'm overlooking. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

We should add a "Legacy" section to to this page. A lot of different publications praised Ariana for reviving pop music and helping push pop up back the charts. They appreciated her breaking popstar boundaries and dropping two albums in six months. She also changed the landscape of pop music; she infused trap into her hits and further proved that trap is the new pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blowscalls (talk • contribs) 05:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I support, but @Blowscalls:, can you provide us with the sources that discuss the album's impact and legacy? DDTN49 (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Look deeper and ‘Thank U, Next’ is more than a cultural classic 2. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/ariana-grandes-sweetener-proves-that-trap-is-the-new-pop-712838/ 3. https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/ariana-grande-redefined-pop-sweetener-thank-u/ 4. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/07/thank-u-next-why-pop-stars-fell-out-of-love-with-albums-ariana-grande 5. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/ariana-grande-breathin-thank-u-next-pop-charts-754240/ 6. https://junkee.com/ariana-grande-positions-era/275792 7. https://www.bustle.com/p/ariana-grande-is-trademarking-thank-u-next-it-shows-how-iconic-the-phrase-has-become-17024661

Blowscalls (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Mastering

Cannot edit due to protection but we should add Randy Merrill – mastering (all tracks) to the technical personnel Glenohumeral13 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now: Tidal doesn't mention Merrill mastering all the tracks. Please provide a source that backs it up. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

There is no reason Thank U, Next (album) shouldn't have a Legacy and influence column since it's influenced many artists including Billie Eilish who said that Ariana Grande's 2019 album Thank U, Next inspired her to continue making music. Michelle780 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TGHL ↗ 🍁 01:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Change "Upon its release, Thank U, Next received critical acclaim, with compliments on the cohesive production and Grande's showcase of her personal and vulnerable side." to "Upon release, Thank U, Next was met with widespread critical acclaim, with praise centering on its cohesiveness, the production and Grande's vulnerability throughout the record." I do not see a single reason as to why "widespread critical acclaim" was removed. The editor also left no edit summary. Blowscalls (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Because it is WP:PUFFERY. Melmann 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

How is it exaggeration or puffery when the album did in fact earn widespread critical acclaim and praise for its cohesiveness and her vulnerability? I also find it interesting how these changes weren't made to Swift's Folklore and Evermore even though not all reviews of those albums were entirely positive. Blowscalls (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you don't see why it is puffery and reply with more puffery indicates that you need to read WP:NPOV. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Can I ask "compliments" to be changed to "praise"? I understand the removal of "widespread" but "compliments" doesn't fit for an album with thank u, next's critical acclaim. If not, I'll accept and end this discussion. Blowscalls (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2022

It may be small, but can the year in the Weekly Charts section be changed from simply 2019, to 2019-2022, as the album continues to chart across many charts worldwide? CTRLminaj (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thank U, Next/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: VersaceSpace (talk · contribs) 22:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for trying to improve the article on one of the most important pop albums of 2019. There are quite a few issues with this article, which I will address shortly. --VersaceSpace 🌃 22:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• The references after the first sentence need to be moved to a lower section per WP:LEADREF
• "It was released six months after her fourth studio album Sweetener (2018), conceived in the midst of Grande's personal struggles, including the death of ex-boyfriend Mac Miller and the end of her engagement to Pete Davidson." − this sentence is quite confusing as the "conceived" part could refer to TUN or SWT. Please make it more clear
• "Grande distanced herself from the traditional promotion cycle that she employed for her previous album releases" − this prompts more questions than it answers. Can you say how?
• "with lyrical content" → "with its lyrical content"
• It would be more helpful to include the different award shows TUN was nominated in than to include half of the Grammy awards it was nominated for
• "Musically, the album is predominantly pop, R&B, and trap, with influences from hip hop" — A thirty-minute album cannot predominantly have three genres. Just say pop.
• "twelve" → 12
• "Named by Rolling Stone, Billboard and People as 2019's best album, it was included" → "Named by several publications as the best album of 2019, the album was included"
• Also, this section needs a major trim. There's four huge piles of prose in this section that are hard to read. There should be three clean, evenly sized paragraphs that read well. The most important albums sometimes get four or five paragraphs, but TUN can be easily summarized in three.

Background and recording

• "Grande found creating 'Ghostin' difficult and initially requested the song's exclusion from the final tracklisting." — this sentence assumes we know what the song is about. Go more in depth and explain why she found creating this song difficult.
• "tracklisting" → "track listing"
• "Grande's team always had champagne in the studio" → "Grande's team kept champagne in the studio"
• "Grande and her team wrote about nine songs in merely a week" — is there an exact number?
• "The Record Plant" → "the Record Plant"

Composition

• I do not see what the Billboard quote has to do with the album's composition.
• Rob Sheffield from Rolling Stone stated the album "Thank U, Next is just a woman and a mood, taking that mood out for a drive until she pedal-to-the-metals it right off a cliff." — there must be a neater way to write this.
• The Shangela photo caption should introduce her as a drag queen, and her full name is unneeded.
• This section just has a length issue in general. Very hard to read. Trim all the opinions out.
• One that needs to go is the Medium girl Chloe Crookshanks. She's not a notable journalist and she's not publishing for a notable website (Medium is a social-media platform where anyone can post articles).

Release and promotion

• "Twenty-two" → "22" but do we really need the exact count-by-day between TUN and SWT?
• The ginormous quote here is probably part of what's triggering the copyvio issue mentioned below.
• Alfredo Flores should be wiki-linked.
• Amazon and Apple Music are inappropriate as sources for the album cover description. This being as popular as it is, there's gotta be an article on the internet that describes how the covers look, and that's what should be used as a source.
• The one taught me love part needs a quotation mark in front of "one"
• "peaking atop of the charts of 15 countries" → "peaking atop the charts of 15 countries"
• The Spotify records here should be removed. Charts belonging to a single retailer should not be used.
• "Grande became the first artist to monopolize the top three" — the word "monopolize" is really not the word I would use here
• "The Beatles" → "the Beatles"
• "'Break Up with Your Girlfriend, I'm Bored' was released as the third single on February 8, 2019, the same day the album was released." Released released released. Please can we use a different word.
• Do we need a whole section for the one promo single?

Critical reception

• This needs to be condensed. This is three overly stuffed paras.
• "Thank U, Next was named as one of the best albums of 2019." — you can't really just say this. something needs to source this.
• The First Wives Club sentence makes no sense.
• "8" → "eight"
• The paragraphs are split into giant burgers of extended nothingness. Can you split them into positive and less positive reviews?\

Awards and nominations

• Grammy Award should be plural

Commercial performance

• There's a "citation needed" tag here...I'm not sure why you nominated this without fixing that first
• In paragraphs three and four, the albums title should be introduced. These paras can also probably be combined. A new paragraph for each country is not needed if the market is not big
• In paragraph one, pure sales of TUN are referred to as "copies", but in the last paragraph, they're referred to as "pure copies". Can you make it more consistent?
• "Grande also ranked as the sixth best-selling artist of 2019 globally and third among female artists" — the article is about TUN, not Grande
• "twelve" → again, "12"
• "eleven" → "11"
• "8" → "eight"
• "fifty" → "50"
• "1" → "one"
• "Outselling" is stan twitter language. How about "selling more than"
• "Including nine debuts" is implied, so that can be omitted

Track listing

• "by Wendy Rene" → "performed by Wendy Rene"

Personnel

• If Shangela is uncredited then why is she here?
• Wiki-link Mattias Bylund
• If its the right person, wiki-link Michael Foster at the first instance
• Alfredo Flores needs to be wiki-linked here as well

Charts

• Good

Certifications and sales

• No updated sales figure for the US?

Release history

• Good

See also

• Okay

References

• In Ref 1, Apple Music needs to be in the publisher field.
• Some references have wiki-linked pubs, some do not. There needs to be consistency.
• Medium still has to go, as I said above. I suggest removing YouTube and everything it sources as well.
• Ref 117...how about instead of writing all of the staff we just say "Rolling Stone staff"

Overall

• This article is extended confirmed (30 days/500 edits) so I'm not sure how the nominator (110 edits) intends on fixing the article's issues.

This was resolved here --VersaceSpace 🌃 20:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Another thing, copyvio is looking really bad. All these links that are over 40% need to be below that. I'm supposed to quick-fail for something like this, but I'd rather let you fix it because I don't think you realized how serious this would be before you nominated the article.

All the "violations" just seem to be quotes, or straightforward ways of phrasing the same thing ("Mac Miller, died from an accidental drug overdose"), so no big deal. Can't speak to the other potential problems with the article, though. Ovinus (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The quotes can be shortened and the words can be mangled as to help reduce the percentages. If you really believe it will not be possible to bring a link below 40%, it will be excused. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think the percentage is a hard number. It may suggest a problem, but it's not a problem itself. All of the found violations seem to stem from the following quote: “My dream has always been to be — obviously not a rapper, but, like, to put out music in the way that a rapper does. I feel like there are certain standards that pop women are held to that men aren’t. We have to do the teaser before the single, then do the single, and wait to do the preorder, and radio has to impact before the video, and we have to do the discount on this day, and all this shit. It’s just like, ‘Bruh, I just want to fucking talk to my fans and sing and write music and drop it the way these boys do. Why do they get to make records like that and I don’t?’ So I do and I did and I am, and I will continue to.” That's a quote from Grande herself, which I think is totally kosher in an article about one of her most popular songs. Ovinus (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, it can be left as is then. I'm confused though, have you taken this nomination over? —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I just saw it on WP:GAN and wanted to take a look! :) Ovinus (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, because it's coming very close to failing as Moonlight hasn't edited the page in several days. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

•  On hold pending the large overhaul this article needs. I'll give you a week and if I see you're trying and need more time I'll be lenient. @Moonlight+BLONK: the onus is on you to make these changes. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @VersaceSpace over a week and there are barely any changes to the article - nominator has not edited in two weeks. How will you approach this? ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
    _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 08:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

    Your Power, thank you for reminding me of this. I think it's time to fail the article as no improvements have been made. —VersaceSpace 🌃 20:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

    ✗ Failed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 20:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)