Jump to content

Talk:Carly Rae Jepsen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emotion as a "moderate commercial success"

[edit]

I don't agree with User:Joseph Prasad replacing the statement that "Emotion underperformed commercially" with "Emotion had moderate commercial success" without citing a source to support that statement.

He writes (on my talk page) that "there are many albums that did worse than Emotion that are not considered a flop, maybe even a success. Drake Bell's Ready Steady Go! is an example of this. He's even considered a moderately successful musician even though his highest peak was #81. Jepsen peaked at #8 in Japan selling over 70,000 copies. So, not a flop. Find a reliable source saying so." I respect that view, but that's what it is: one user's view. We (as editors) aren't meant to decide how to define a "moderate commercial success" or an underperformance; we leave the sources to do that.

I'd like to think Vice magazine—which is already cited in the article to support the original underperformance statement—is considered a reliable source, but if that's not enough, here are some more:

Extraordinary Machine (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources here are pointing out the US only, which Wikipedia does not only list US charts. So yes, you can say what you had there, but only for the US, because a source says so. Even though Top 20 is not at all a flop. And peaking in the Top 10 of other countries definitely makes it not a flop. Plus, most of those are blogs. And it's a contradiction since the lead single was called a "moderate commercial success" by a few sources when talk:Joseph Prasad|talk]]) 06:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
"Even though Top 20 is not at all a flop. And peaking in the Top 10 of other countries definitely makes it not a flop."—again, we're not the ones to form conclusions like this when it comes to writing the article. That's what the sources are for. And a lot of those "blogs" you dismiss are actually the blog sections of websites for well-respected music publications. You're within your right to think that a top 10 or 20 placing equals "moderate commercial success", but unless you can find a reliable source to support this, we can't keep it in the article. That the Emotion article contains similar original research-type statements speaks more of a need to remove those from that article than repeat the same unsupported assertions elsewhere. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I said, most of those sources are playing off United States sales only. Hence, you cannot say what you are trying to say, as it is not referencing other countries, but only the US, which by that case you'd have to say "underperformed commercially in the United States", but you cannot say that about other countries. On the matter of "I Really Like You", a single is considered a hit single when a song reaches the Top 40 of the Hot 100 (or by some cases, just hitting the Hot 100 or even the Bubbling Under Hot 100). The reason is it considered a flop is due to the bias of "Call Me Maybe", as you can see from the articles posted here, they will keep comparing it to that song. Everything she does will be considered a flop if it doesn't hit Top 5, I'm sure. According to the sources here, "I Really Like You" was called a "hit", which identifies commercial success. Here, they call "Tug of War" a moderate success, and it only sold 10,000 copies in Canada. Plus, we can just say like in the album article, it charted/sold lower/less than Kiss, because like I said, the words you're saying puts it off as if it had zero success anywhere. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to the facts, and there won't be a problem. "Was successful..." is not a fact. "Sold n copies..." "Appeared at position n on x chart..." are factual. Determinations of "success" are not NPOV in most cases. LaMona (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If sticking to the facts alone is too dry for your liking, another option would be to clearly present these WP:SUBJECTIVE evaluations as the opinions of third parties (which is, by the way, what they are). "The album was a failure" is an unprovable judgment; "critics/observers/whoever generally considered the album a failure" is significantly better, assuming you back it up with sufficient references to avoid being WP:WEASEL-ly. You would have to take great care to avoid giving niche opinions WP:UNDUE weight, but that's just business as usual—after all, even if you stick to facts and figures, you have to choose which facts and which figures. larryv (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Rae Jepsen new album

[edit]

Carly recently said that she's working on her new album, that it will be disco and ABBA and Bee Gees influenced, can someone please add this to her page? :)

Source: http://vancouversun.com/entertainment/local-arts/carly-rae-jepsen-interview-weekend-extra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenolee95 (talkcontribs) 22:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Activism?

[edit]

Not to sound cynical, but does declining to perform at one event -- while for admittedly laudable reasons -- constitute activism? Are there examples of other, ongoing functions she has performed in the furtherance of a particular cause? If not, labeling this section "Activism" seems like a bit of a stretch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.46.172 (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carly getting a sword , new section or at least an addition

[edit]

I feel like Carly getting a sword was a really major event… there were a ton of articles spawned from that event and even a petition to give her a crown. I think it merits entry into this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlyRaeJepsenStan (talkcontribs) 23:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming

[edit]

I noted in the discography section that Dedicated is "forthcoming", as is often done on other articles. 2600:387:3:805::90 objects for reasons I'm unclear about. What do others thing? Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so.....what is happening??
Is 2022 Winter Games (Paralmpics) Canadian Flagbearer related to Carly Rae?? 205.189.94.8 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

[edit]

The "Queen of Pop" epithet section in the impact section should be removed - there's only one actual use of this in the sources cited, and the the other 'queen of refences are all to a stupid meme about her and are basically WP:SYNTH 92.97.135.246 (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done She's not even on the list that counts [1] - FlightTime (open channel) 18:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References