Talk:You All Over Me

Additional Copy Of "You All Over Me" and Proposition

@DarkGlow, Doggy54321, and AnswerMeNow1: Sorry for the ping, but it has been brought to my attention that there are two identical pages about Taylor Swift's "You All Over Me" (this one & You All Over Me (from The Vault). Though, I don't think it's necessary to two articles that are about the same thing, but, I do think it's a good idea to merge the two documents into one and we can all work on it together. But, I do think it is best for the right to have it in a draft state since it is new and we don't have enough reliable sources. Please let me know your thoughts and ideas! Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 22:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That makes enough sense. I think it should stay on "You All Over Me (from The Vault)", in my view, but I don't really mind. --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It is correct process that, once a draft is submitted for review, there shouldn’t be any mainspace articles on the draft article subject as that disrupts the AFC process. I’ve redirected the mainspace article because this article already meets notability guidelines. Any work anyone wants to do can be done here. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll merge some of the content into here. BTW is this a single or a promotional single -- and does Maren Morris have a feature credit or just backing vocals? --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@AnswerMeNow1: To be honest, I don't know. Doggy54321, what do you think? Also, based on Swift's Twitter and social media, it seems that Maren Morris is just backing vocals. If anything changes, you'll probably know by then. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 22:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@JackReynoldsADogOwner and AnswerMeNow1: Maren Morris is confirmed to be a feature by @taylornation13 on Twitter (the account is a secondary account run by Swift herself, and it is verified, so it passes WP:SOCIALMEDIA), so the artist parameter would be "Taylor Swift featuring Maren Morris". With regard to single status: news outlets that reported "Love Story" (Taylor's Version) to be a single aren’t doing the same to "You All Over Me". To be fair, no news outlets in general are reporting the song as a single. There are also no radio listings or indication of an independent release given by Swift, her team or Republic. With that being said, it’s safe to say the song is a promo single until further release. You can find the criteria on what makes a single at WP:SINGLESCRIT (but keep in mind that it’s an essay). Also - I realize that my comment above sounds a little rude, that was never my intention, and I speed-wrote that in around 30 seconds without reading it again. Sorry for that. Furthermore, I know no one brought this up but the release date has been confirmed to be March 26, 2021, on TaylorNation's Instagram. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding "(from The Vault)"?

What do you think about adding "(from The Vault)" at the end of the page? It would make sense, as AnswerMeNow1 in previous talk (see above). Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 22:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s unnecessary disambiguation as "You All Over Me" is the primary topic. However, if Love Story (Taylor's Version) or Fearless (Taylor's Version) get split off into their own pages (something that very well could happen), I would say to open a requested move to add "(from The Vault)" at the end for consistency. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, though I prefer adding "(from The Vault)". And yeah, if Fearless (Taylor's Version) becomes its own page [what are the exact rules around that? I know that, for example, Dua Lipa: Complete Edition has an article, while Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition doesn't -- is it waiting for it to achieve certain notability] then "(from The Vault)" should be added. --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@AnswerMeNow1: The Moonlight Edition was deemed not notable and was merged to its parent article after an AFD. As well, we would only add the disambiguation ("Taylor's Version") if it’s necessary. Example: it’s Don't Call Me Angel, not Don't Call Me Angel (from Charlie's Angels), as the extra disambiguation is redundant. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a helpful example, thanks! --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Copied from User Talk Page

@Robert McClenon: Hey! Thanks for reviewing the draft. I completely understand where you’re coming from in regard to the song being unreleased, but I’ve generally found that Swift articles tend to be notable before release (she's popular enough that many news outlets report on it within a couple hours). With regard to the notability, I see that you deemed the article not notable because the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I know there are only four published, reliable, secondary sources (which, don’t you only need two to pass GNG?) that show significant coverage, but I can provide about a dozen more if needed. I’m not trying to argue that the draft should be accepted here, because clearly you know more about this than I do, but I’m just wondering if I add all of these sources, would that be enough to pass notability guidelines? If you could please clarify that for me, that would be great. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Doggy54321 - The major problem with the draft was that it had a Composition and Lyrics heading, but no text. I see that you removed the empty heading, which is all right. As for as adding sources, there is a myth in Wikipedia that adding sources is what needs to be done to get an article accepted. Sources are a necessary but not a sufficient condition. I know that I will not accept an article simply because more sources are added. The purpose of the sources is to verify the information that must be in the article. The real question is whether the article should state exactly what the advance publicity says about the song. If there were a great deal of advance publicity a month before the song was released, then that would be different. As it is, the advance publicity is two days before the song will be released. At least that is my answer. I would advise waiting until the song is released, and then saying something about what critics say and about charting. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: That all makes sense, thanks for the clarification! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Now that the song has been released, the article has detailed "Composition and lyrics" and "Critical reception" sections. For this reason, I have resubmitted the draft as I think it meets the criteria you laid out, as well as the notability guidelines for music. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Another Reviewer Comment

Now that the song has been released, I would like to try to understand something. There seems to be something peculiar about how the coverage of the song, because the song is currently redirected to an album that is isn't in, and the alternative is to redirect it to an album that doesn't yet exist. Is the song in the existing Fearless album at all, or is it only in the re-recorded version of the album that is still in the hyping stage? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: "You All Over Me" was originally intended for the 2008 (original) version of Fearless, but was ultimately scrapped. Once Swift announced her plan to re-record the album (after the selling of her masters), she also announced the intention to record some of the songs that didn't make it onto the album. "You All Over Me" is one of these. I hope this clears it up for you! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 11:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

Reviewer: VersaceSpace (talk · contribs) 16:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

lead and infobox

• "describes the narrators inability" → "describes the narrator's inability"
  • Done.
    • Actually done. (I somehow forgot to save the edits, sorry about that)
• The song debuted atop Billboard Country Digital Songs and Country Streaming Songs charts" → "The song debuted atop the Billboard Country Digital Songs and Country Streaming Songs charts"
  • Done.
• The lyric video has more than 6.8 million views now
  • Updated to 7 million views.
• infobox looks good

background and release

• some context should be given regarding the masters situation, including a mention and wikilink of Scooter Braun
  • Done.
    • It appears BawinV has an issue with the context I added; I'm not really sure what to do now because I have no experience with good article reviews. Where should this be discussed?

composition and lyrics

• not sure why there's a comma next to "lilting" but that should be removed
  • Done.

critical reception

• Good

commercial performance

• Good

credits and personnel

• Good

charts

• Good

release history

• Good

notes

• Good

references

• refs 5, 12, 16, 22, 24: un-wikilink billboard
  • This isn't really significant, but per MOS:OVERLINK, "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article".

comments

 On hold versacespaceleave a message! 09:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

All concerns seem to have been addressed. I'll allow the Scooter Braun pointer to slide below since another editor had an issue with it. I'll ✓ Pass this, thank you. versacespaceleave a message! 21:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, thank you! This is my first ever good article, and thanks again for passing it. Have a great day. PassedDown (talk | contribs)

• Hi, thanks for reviewing this article! Unfortunately, it's not clear from this review if all the GA criteria have been evaluated. For example, did you check for potential copyright violations, image licensing issues, or if the cited sources back up the statements made in the article? See Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#Assessing_the_article_and_providing_a_review for the guideline on reviewing good articles and the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates for helpful templates to make sure you don't forget any of the criteria. (t · c) buidhe 22:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: Yes, I did review the article according to the listed criteria and did not find any further issues that have not been addressed on this page. If you feel I missed something, please be more specific. versacespaceleave a message! 01:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Single status

It's about time we stop calling every song released before an album a "single". It wouldn't have even been a question two years ago that "You All Over Me" is a promotional single because it was only released digitally. A radio release or statement from label has always been required in the industry to categorize a song as a commercial single. Sources that omit the word "promotional" without explicitly stating that a song is going to be commercially released do not determine a song's release. It's spreading false information. 2601:180:8200:63D0:AC8F:4615:4C42:F082 (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)