Former good article nomineeMeghan Trainor was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
April 21, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

RIAA Certifications Update

Source: http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?content_selector=gold-platinum-searchable-database

Removal of previous two albums

I don't think her acoustic studio albums should be removed just cause they were taken out of stores for Title to count as her debut. I think it should at least be noted. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just because an album is out of print doesn't mean it is to be removed from an artist's discography. These weren't demos. They were commercially available and intended for the listening public. Many precedents have been set on this issue on Wikipedia. Eminem's Infinite, as well as Pantera's first four albums come to mind. All of them were released pre-fame, and have remained out of print ever since these artists achieved fame. All were either self-released or were released on small labels that didn't amount to much more than a self release. All can regularly be found on eBay. Exactly the same situation with Meghan Trainor. There's really no debate here. The removal of these albums was an improper edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.134.55 (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Trainor's two acoustic albums are going to be included in the discography table, then shouldn't her self-titled be there too? It was even available for purchase on iTunes: [1] --Markhoris (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia but have Meghan Trainor's three self-released albums. If scans of the covers and backs with song titles will help keep the page accurate, please let me know. Thanks, Mike. I can be reached at moparmike1@shaw.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moparmike1 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think that a small mention in the article is enough and there is no need for it to be in the discography section. --Markhoris (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. They call it her debut because her other albums were pulled so they can call it her "debut" even though it really is not. Same thing with many albums, such as Drake Bell's Telegraph, that was released independantly, and some sources call his album It's Only Time his debut. It is an album available for purchase, so why would it be removed, it is a part of her discography. And to answer Markhoris, yes, that album should be included as well, as Title is not really her debut. And just because an article doesn't exist means nothing. There are plenty of articles like that. The two acoustic albums are even mentioned in the article. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Joseph Prasad and the IP editor. Glossing over an artist's releases because of a marketing campaign by Trainor's record label is inaccurate, irresponsible, and a disservice to the reader. The albums' existence can be verified. An easy compromise is to note that Title was promoted by the record company as Trainor's debut album, as is done at Metamorphosis (Hilary Duff album) (Duff released a low-selling Christmas album the year prior to the release of Metamorphosis). –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to see a real high ranking debut album, see Taylor Swift's debut or Miranda Cosgrove's Sparks Fly. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to include the pre-Title albums in the discography section, should it be in the studio albums sub-section? How about we do something similar to this: [2] I'm not sure if "mixtapes" is the right word though. Several sources ([3] [4] [5]) have referred to I'll Sing with You and Only 17 as acoustic albums, so maybe that's what we should call them? --Markhoris (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Trainor's 2009 album that another editor mentioned that was on iTunes should be included as well. It tends to be a problem when an album or EP was out for very little time and pulled, or if it just leaked. here is an example of something that is extremely hard to include, but iTunes is a little better. Include the 2009 as well. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Culture/Gossip

The term ‘Megatronz’ was created by Meghan Trainor herself who discussed her fans and this term with Melissa Nathoo, interviewer and associate of ode (on demand entertainment), a YouTube Channel that interviews famous celebrities [1] Trainor claims that she loves the term ‘Megatronz’ and that she spells it with a ‘z’ instead of an ‘s’ so she does not need to pay them or get sued by Transformers [2].

In her hit song “All About That Bass”, she is addressing society's perceptions and views on body image. Trainor is sending out a message in this particular song telling young women and girls to “love your body no matter what,” and to “be confident about yourself because every inch of you is perfect” [3][4]. Even though this song is addressing the issue of body image, some gossip began to spread accusing Trainor of being anti-feminist [5]. They claimed that women who have “smaller figures are at petty odds to the body positiveness the song embraces” and that Trainor is “peddling a muddled brand of self-acceptance” [6].

Dblair18 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lilly, A. (2006, June 4). ODE. Retrieved March 8, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/user/itn/featured
  2. ^ Nathoo, M. (2015, January 24). Meghan Trainor talks Harry Styles duet, Megatronz and sings without moving lips. Retrieved March 8, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAnVZpnPjT8
  3. ^ Dreisbach, S. (2014, October 10). Our Body-Image Inspiration: Singer Meghan Trainor. Retrieved March 8, 2015, from http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/vitamin-g/2014/10/our-body-image-inspiration-all
  4. ^ Walker, J. (2014, October 6). Artist To Watch: Meghan Trainor's Actually About A Lot More Than Just That Bass. Retrieved March 8, 2015, from http://www.mtv.com/news/1953775/meghan-trainor-artist-to-watch/
  5. ^ Shah, B. (2014, September 30). Is Meghan Trainor's uber-hit All About That Bass anti-feminist? Retrieved March 8, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/30/all-about-that-bass-body-shaming-mess-or-banging-novelty-hit
  6. ^ Shah, B. (2014, September 30). Is Meghan Trainor's uber-hit All About That Bass anti-feminist? Retrieved March 8, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/30/all-about-that-bass-body-shaming-mess-or-banging-novelty-hit
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. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 01:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singer-songwriter

Still an issue. She does not (no matter how many say she does) meet the criteria nor does she fit the definition for a singer-songwriter. Most importantly, reliable sources do not support "Singer-songwriter". Singer/songwriter can be found online, however, this is not the same as singer-songwriter (case in point, singer/songwriter/producer is also found online). Singer, songwriter along with singer and songwriter is also found in reliable sources.

I intend to fight the current nomenclature in the article - and, frankly, there was no previous consensus (as is now being claimed). Those involved with the discussion previous should be honest and recall correctly that the mediation discussion in January failed to reach a consensus. If I'm incorrect in how that discussion ended up, feel free to correct me with diffs showing otherwise. Regardless, Trainor does not fit the description (reliable sources don't support it, either) and as long as she is the kind of singer and co-songwriter she is now, never will. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and [11] are all reliable sources and support simply "singer-songwriter". Isnt the above user "lyin-lyin-lyin"? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 16:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a non-issue. What is the problem with using "singer and songwriter"? It is still accurate, doesn't contradict anything in the sources MF has provided, and is not controversial like "singer-songwriter" is. Just my two cents. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trainor IS a singer-songwriter and NOTHING will be as accurate as s-s to describe Trainor. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree that she is a singer-songwriter.  — ₳aron 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with All About That Bass. This is not that big of a deal. Numerous references support using "singer-songwriter" Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this, I am thereby deeming the article stable and am proceeding with the Good Article nomination. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Spin article is the only relevant source here, as it is a music source. I remember past dispute (and edit warring) about this here. I understand your grievance WV; the term has become diluted, applied to virtually any recording artist with co-writing credits. The fact of the matter is, as has been said before in prior discussion, a reliable source calls her a singer-songwriter (mind you, without context), so she can be referenced as such, and there's no consensus against the use of the hyphen. Lapadite (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're all relevant here, which only proves the point that she is a singer-songwriter. Calidum T|C 22:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-fact based and shoddy "journalism" that refers to her incorrectly as a singer-songwriter only proves one thing: those writing the piece know nothing about music and what it means (and has always meant) to be a singer-songwriter. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-fact based and shoddy "journalism"" > Your opinion/own original research. -- 104.161.12.144 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:OR. If you feel some of the world's most respected newspapers are in error, contact them. Their word carries far greater weight than anything you say. Calidum T|C 03:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
50+ years a professional musician with a degree in music? Yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should I start making claims out of thin air too now? Regardless, it's still an opinion contrary to reliable sources. Truthiness isn't acceptable here. Calidum T|C 14:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WV, your behavior to deny the consensus constantly doesn't at all make the article unstable. It just demonstrates a lack of maturity in yourself. If you continue enforcing your opinion (WP:OWN) and continue targeting the page whenever it is GA-nominated (WP:REVENGE and WP:BAIT). It could lead to action against yourself. Don't make unreasonable requests. All I know is that the so-called "shoddy" journalism is by reliable sources (WP:RS) who explicitly state "singer-songwriter". They are better sources than your opinion (We wont use your birth certificate as a source, would we?) All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 04:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have to stop wanting accurate content in articles. You seem to think this has something to do with the article being GA nominated. It doesn't. It's about accuracy. And just for the record, for every reliable source that wrongly refers to her as a singer-songwriter, there are at least two that correctly refer to her as a singer and songwriter.
In regard to the argument that because reliable sources state it, therefore, the content MUST reflect it: If a reliable source refers to something scientific or medical or artistic some other specialized field of interest by incorrect nomenclature, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? For example: If a reliable source refers to someone as having melanoma when they really have carcinoma, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to a paleontological period as Cenozoic when it was really Jurassic, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to an artistic period as Renaissance when it is really Neoclassicism, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source? If a reliable source refers to the musical artistic classification in relation to a musical artist as a singer-songwriter when they are really a singer and a songwriter, do we accept it because it is from a reliable source?
The answer for all of these is: no. We use encyclopedic editorial reasoning along with common sense because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias contain facts, not incorrect content that is backed up by shoddy journalism. There is plenty of evidence via other reliable sources that Meghan Trainor is a singer and a songwriter. Those sources are correct. The sources that say she is a singer-songwriter are wrong. Bottom line. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"or every reliable source that wrongly refers to her as a singer-songwriter, there are at least two that correctly refer to her as a singer and songwriter"; WV, whether that is the case - and you'd need to link those sources - there still isn't consensus to use "singer and songwriter". You can start a RfC if you want wider input. Lapadite (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also presumes the terms are mutually exclusive. Calidum T|C 14:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am now following WP:DFTT here and suggest everyone else do the same. Not a single guideline or source cited by the above user. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 05:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Touche' All About That Bass! I agree with you there. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just hold an RFC? Then you can have a straight-up consensus without sniping back and forth at each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is Trainor a singer, or a singer-songwriter?

Should Trainor be categorized as a singer or, the more precise, singer-songwriter? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 19:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories