Talk:Royals (song)

Info about several covers

[1] Adabow (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Used it, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 12:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Alleged racism

Why is there a huge section that centers on the opinion of a largely unknown feminist blogger? In that case, why don't we have a section for every bloggers alternative interpretation of the song? Since that would be unfeasible, let's minimize bias by removing the "alleged racism" section entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.112.90 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The controversy about the blogger's comments received widespread coverage (see the multiple refs given), hence became notable. If other bloggers' comments about this song, and/or controversies they generate, receive a comparable amount of coverage, they may be considered for inclusion in this article. Dwpaul (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The topic is worth mentioning, but the current section is way too long - over 400 words! It's totally out of proportion with the rest of the article content. Specifically, there does not need to be a breakdown of every major blog or media mention of the incident. The situation could - and should - easily be summarised in one or two sentences. Something like this: In October 2013, blogger Verónica Bayetti Flores published a review of "Royals", criticising what she perceived to be racist themes in the song's lyrics. This sparked debate among bloggers and media commentators. Robyn2000 (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it has gotten out of hand, and should not have its own section, but just two sentences? And in which section should it go? BollyJeff | talk 13:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Royals (song)#Alleged racism: What Dwpaul said. Also, we have two ref's justifying the blogger as influential – "largely unknown feminist blogger" is an unrepresentative description. I think, it's a well verifiable historical item and should stay as a section. However, the The Civilian and most quotes might be slimmed substantially. Then, The Civilian para' might be merged with the following. Overall, this might be reduced by about a third and still convey the useful facts, IMO.

Whilst there does come a come a point where coverage of such matters becomes more about systemics and how the media feeds itself, I don't think that's substantially happened here.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've bitten the bullet and made some changes. I replaced the big section with a couple of sentences, and references. It essentially summarises what the larger section previously said - that there were accusations of racism and a subsequent debate. And of course, being Wikipedia, anyone else is welcome to add/change it. :D Robyn2000 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Seems contra-consensual, fan-pagey/carpet-underswept and, now, ungrounded. (Meanwhile, there is beer in the world.)   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Catching-up: On 28 Nov 2013, the ungrounded portion of my criticism came home to roost and Robyn2000's (over-short, IMO) summary was wiped by another editor as under-cited. Since I agreed it was under-cited, I reverted our coverage to the complete (sub-section) text. This has undergone a couple of refinements and now forms a top-level section Royals_(song)#Racism_controversy.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• I think it's predominantly good content and – googling around date-ranges of: "Verónica Flores" | "Verónica Bayetti Flores" | "Veronica Flores" | "Veronica Bayetti Flores" | "Feministing" "Royals" "Lorde" "Racism" | "Racist" – it seems we stopped covering the issue, due to article imbalance, when "Royals" was exonerated – not when the issue had ended.

I think the ideal solution is to float the section off as a dedicated article, where it's media-incestuousness, bigotry PC vs systemic bigotry PC, etc. aspects can expand without further Royals_(song) imbalance. Then the dedicated article carry the citations and coverage on this article can be summarised to about three sentences. Do we think it's sufficiently notable? Do we have examples of similar situations, where such a split has worked?   – Ian,DjScrawl (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've just made a couple of changes. I've removed the specific dates to each noted example, giving a general time of October 2013. Two months later, the story is no longer breaking news and we can start to look at it in terms of an event that happened in October 2013, rather than as something current. I've also removed the reference to the satirical article on The Civilian. That site is like a New Zealand version of The Onion, and Wikipedia doesn't typically note every time The Onion satirises a topic. As always, if you think either of these changes could be improved upon, go ahead. :-)

Also - I don't think the topic needs its own article. It's no longer a hot news story (at least in New Zealand - I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world) and I wouldn't say it's harmed Lorde's music career at all. Take a look at the controversy section for "Blurred Lines", another popular but controversial song from 2013 - one paragraph for each of the issues. I think that's all "Royals" needs. Consider also a song like "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" - 40 years ago it was banned in the UK, but that info is only mentioned as part of a regular Wikipedia single article. — Robyn2000 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think, relative timing is vital to the section. I've recovered that, briefed The Civilian / CNN, and added some wikilinks.

My dedicated article idea's based on possible notability, not need. Though reiterating, I do think there's more that's relevant to the media event, which is stymied by it's containment here. I don't think to was a stunt, more the product of the write like a devil's advocate on coke style of commentary, pioneered by Julie Burchill. I'd say the controversy improved the gravitas of "Royals", its notoriety and that of all involved, with The Civilian being the start of the fightback. We did miss-out on a cliché hip-hopper vs hip-hopper (Flores vs Yelich-O'Connor), metaphorical cap-poppin' exchange (I expect Lorde's schedule was a little tight). However, I would be less surprised by a Pure Heroine follow-up including a "Dear Verónica" song, than by Flores coming-up with some music.

Thanks for the other song controversies, they do inform notability. Another contributory question is that of novelty – How unusual is this particular juxtaposition of perspective / rhetoric in contemporary culture?   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I like your latest edits. I would personally hold off creating a new article because at this stage I don't think the event is notable enough to warrant a page. If that "Dear Verónica" does eventuate (!), that would be the time to revisit. (By the way, I'm sure I've recently read a print article where Lorde comments on the racism situation. I'm not sure if it's online, though. I'll have a look through the recycling and see if I can find it...) - Robyn2000 (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm very late to this, but I'm a professional pop music critic, doing a sweep of the Hot 100 songs from the past year, and this is something I have some knowledge of. First, the Feministing piece was not the first to make this argument -- Feministing generally does more aggregation than original research, and when it (and Jezebel, etc.) cover music, they tend to pick up on things that critics and bloggers have already been saying. (I'm admittedly a bit biased here, because I commented on the hip-hop undertones in "Royals"' back in June, as did several of my colleagues.) Since then it's been cited as the only example of its kind and thus inherently more fringe (either as part of the clickbait cycle that turned "Blurred Lines" into a huge freaking deal or as a standard "here's one fringe blogger, can you give a canned response to refute it and look moderate" journalistic technique -- an otherwise excellent, high-access Lorde piece in Interview Magazine is the best example of the latter.) Admittedly there's not very much Wikipedia can do about that, and in any case it's no longer relevant because the controversy has taken on a life of its own -- but, well, that's why it seems like there's just one source.

I do think the second part of this needs more work -- not to flesh it out, per se, but to replace the hodgepodge of flimsy sources that currently exists. As you'd expect for a No. 1 pop song with a good deal of critical acclaim, every pop critic currently working has written something about "Royals" -- Slate's annual critics' roundtable addressed it for several installments, Spin did at least once piece, Vice (and maybe Noisey proper) and Complex weighed in, I'm sure Pitchfork and the New York Times wrote about it somewhere, etc. (Nowhere near a consensus, either -- Spin's writer has a different opinion from Slate's writers; another writer for 180 did a near-complete 180 in her year-end writeup, etc.) Again, I'm biased, being in this profession, but I think most people would agree these hold far more weight than citing some dismissive guy at "World Socialist Web Site," which is not generally known for its music criticism. Katherineonwiki (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So where is the section placed now? I don't see the subject as being mentioned at all currently. GS438 (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

ARIA Digital Chart

The ARIA Digital Chart [2] lists "Royals (The Love Club EP)". Does this not mean it is a measure of the whole EP, with "Royals" as the 'main' track; ie "The Love Club EP including Royals"? Adabow (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox/genre: synthpop? electropop?

Meganesia has contributed synthpop to infobox/genre, with a Pandora.com track URL citation.

The Wikipedia definition of synthpop chiefly relates to pop made with the analogue/monophonic synth's which predominated pre-mid-80s. So, is Pandora saying "Royals" is somehow markedly 80s-retro or would we transpose synthpop to Wikipedia parlance for the modern equivalent, electropop?

Either way, neither synthpop or electropop are mentioned elsewhere on the article.

Anyhow, are Pandora.com URLs accepted for citations? Do they even lead to webpages? When I visit the link, it wants me to register and, presumably, download a turnkey browser.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I have reverted the previous edit. — Simon (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your Pandora is not a source for genres. My questions were not entirely rhetorical.

Noospherologically (and aesthetically), insofar as synthpop or even electropop is applicable, it's by broadening their scope sufficiently that meaningfulness is lost in distinguishing this track from millions of others, i.e. the terms fail WP:PRECISE.

However, I am surprised by a categoric "Pandora is not a source for [track] genres" _{(WP search)}. They have the funding and infrastructure to give world-class answers to track/album genre (assuming they're well motivated to be unbiased on the matter – I'm not intimately familiar with the service). If you have such, I'd value your fav'e link on the consensus.

BTW: I do think Infobox/genre content is sub-optimal and stymied by edit-war over-defensiveness. I'll look for a rearrangement to harness WP:BOLD and drive it into a consensus-munger, around here someplace.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

STOP‽ ... GA (good article) review time‽

Page seems settled (mostly chart updates) and in great shape.

Do any of y'all think a good article review would be better delayed further?   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think it might be a good idea to tackle #Alleged racism overload before a GA review.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

When's the 1st "Royals" could've been considered a download single?

A question of how we represent "Royals" parental-release – The Love Club EP (then SoundCloud or retail) or Pure Heroine – from when/which we represent that on the Lorde discography#Singles table.

If editors would like to contribute, it's: Talk:Lorde discography#When's the 1st "Royals" could've been considered a download single?   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Music video filming locations

Does anyone know, perhaps from interviews with Lorde, where the music video was shot? I understand it was within Auckland, but my question is what area specifically? Ashton 29 (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be helpful to look for interviews with the video's director, Joel Kefali. I found one interview here, but he only says it's shot in Auckland. Robyn2000 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

http://moot.co.nz/2013/05/13/video-premiere-royals-lorde/ says "Mt Wellington, Morningside train station, and a school gymnasium". The scene of a palm tree in front of an apartment building is definitely shot from the Morningside Train Station platform looking south-east. Perhaps all the train and train station scenes were shot there, I'm guessing. The recording studio, Golden Age, is one block from the station. If true that something was shot in Mt Wellington, my guess is that possibly it was the suburban street scene near the start and end. It looks like a new suburb, so possibly in Stonefields, to the north-west of Mt Wellington Domain. Nurg (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, a very informative response. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's in D major, not G.86.156.55.182 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Composer?

The article says the singer wrote the lyrics, but who was credited as the composer of the music?Tito john (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Tiffany?

I know this song's chart history and its recording artist are being compared to the singer Tiffany's comparable performance, but why have illustrate the Lorde article with picture of Tiffany? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to show a picture of Lorde? Nuttyskin (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

dates

The dates in this article need to be cleaned up and standardized, especially in the sources. In the accolades section, there are dates like December 18, 2013 alongside dates like 15 October 2013. Presumably the latter is the form that should be maintained throughout this article. only (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Only:  Fixed, using the later as you suggested. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Royals (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Happy to offer a review. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC) "counterpointing popular artists' luxurious lifestyles" Unclear. The lead is slightly US-centric. The lead could do with at least a nod towards the covers. "by Maclachlan" Who? "Lorde began writing songs on guitar as a teenager[5][6] Lorde was eventually paired with writer and producer Joel Little and this working relationship clicked almost immediately.[4] The Love Club EP was self-released by Lorde in November 2012, in the form of a complimentary SoundCloud set.[7]" This all needs reworking I'm not sure you're using dashes correctly. See WP:DASH. The writing in the background section is a little sloppy. Lots of "she"s, lots of editorialising: "clicked", "recalled", "only". This kind of thing, as well as breaking up the flow, affects the neutrality of the article. "he remarked "Yeah, this is cool"." Is this adding anything? ""Royals" is an art pop,[15] minimal pop,[16] and electropop,[17] song.[18]" What's the last reference for? The fact it's a song? If the last mentions all three, lose the others. "The lyrics are described as turning "the aspirationalism of hip-hop culture on its head." The song concerns the luxury and lifestyle of pop artists." Could this be rephrased? Digital Spy is a blog and I've no clue what "The Singles Jukebox" is. Could we focus the reception section (which is currently surprisingly short) on the words of more reputable critics/critics publishing in more reputable publications? The Guardian is a good start; broadsheets and music magazines (preferably from a variety of countries) would be best. "and Time trailed the matter in entertainment news" What does "trailed" mean in this context? Could this be rephrased? "the inflated media storm" Editorialising? I wonder if the "controversy" section could be better incorporated into the reception section? There's sometimes a worry that "controversy" sections can affect neutrality. Perhaps a subsection called "Racial components" or something (this requires some thought- it should be done carefully and I'm just thinking aloud, here). What is "Dialogos Online Forum"? This doesn't seem to be a great source, particularly for the fairly large claims you're using it to make. "In Australia, "Royals" was released simultaneously with "The Love Club" and was classified as a single for charting purposes and spent two weeks at its peak position of number two on the ARIA Singles Chart; sales of tracks on the album counted toward the EP, and therefore could not chart separately." Long, complex sentence "for longest reign by a woman" Reign? The charting section, too, feels US-centric. "As of November 2014, "Royals" has sold over 10 million copies." Is that worldwide? "On her lack of appearance in the video" Clumsy "The US version also received 300 million views meaning this video is now certified." I don't follow. "The 'Royals' music video also won Lorde a VMA for 'Best Rock Video' at the 2014 VMA'S. The video has 387 million views at the time." Unsourced, badly formatted. The Japanese version of the video probably should be mentioned in the lead. Any more information? Why should we care what she was wearing? I'm also unclear why we need details of all these television appearances; I'd be happy with just a list of the shows/venues with a bit more space given to details about the tour (which is currently not mentioned) and the promotional single. The covers section is a bit all over the place. I'd recommend focussing on those covers actually released, followed by parodies (which are moderately important) followed finally just by live covers (I'd just list the artists who have performed them rather than providing any details- it's interesting, but not that important). The rationale on the sample could do with looking at, and, technically, the cover should be reduced to no larger than 300 by 300. I've not looked closely at the references yet (reference formatting is generally outside of the remit of GAC but poor sourcing certainly isn't- in addition to those already mentioned, I'm seeing Tumblr, "Clipland", Direct Lyrics, Google+, Twitter and YouTube, which aren't ideal), but I am afraid my concerns about poor sources, lack of detail in the reception section, sloppy writing (particularly in the "covers" section) and editorialising affecting the neutrality (particularly in "background" and "controversy") give me enough to say that it is better to close this review at this time. Take some time to make the changes I've suggested (and I'd be happy to help out with copyediting, finding good sources and so on if you like) and then renominate; I would be happy to offer a review again if I don't have any further input on the article between now and then. This is a topic which deserves a decent article, and while this isn't there yet, it's coming along well, but more successful songs are always going to be a little more difficult to write about. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Royals (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150717114444/http://www.billboard.com/biz/charts/2014-02-15/portugal-digital-songs to http://www.billboard.com/biz/charts/2014-02-15/portugal-digital-songs When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. 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: 5 June 2024). 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Royals (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: Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/digital-tracks When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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: 5 June 2024). 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 10 external links on Royals (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: Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hitquarters.com/index.php3?page=intrview%2Fopar%2Fintrview_ScottM.html Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11126667 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202075455/http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/singles to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/singles Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502110126/http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/20140423/ to http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/20140423/ Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214225036/http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparadask/index.php?hitp=R&rubrika=1218 to http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparadask/index.php?hitp=R&rubrika=1218 Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.recordreport.com.ve/publico/?i=poprock Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203211529/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20130001 to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20130001 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113005101/http://www.fimi.it/5233 to http://www.fimi.it/5233 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715102748/http://media.wix.com/ugd/ff1e07_13cc06642b654b95979ea5d7fb76d27a.pdf to http://media.wix.com/ugd/ff1e07_13cc06642b654b95979ea5d7fb76d27a.pdf Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6GuWJIOEO?url=http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?content_selector=riaa-news-gold-and-platinum to http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?content_selector=riaa-news-gold-and-platinum&news_month_filter=5&news_year_filter=2013&id=C19496E7-CEC0-C453-D8A1-BD80E56E610F 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: 5 June 2024). 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) 19:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 27 external links on Royals (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: Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/triple-a/future-releases Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases Corrected formatting/usage for http://at.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Corrected formatting/usage for http://fi.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Corrected formatting/usage for http://lu.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Corrected formatting/usage for http://pt.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Corrected formatting/usage for http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/chocolate-report-my-mis-adventures-tomorrowland/2013/oct/11/lordes-royals-not-racist/ Corrected formatting/usage for http://renownedforsound.com/index.php/single-review-lorde-royals/ Corrected formatting/usage for https://uk.celebrity.yahoo.com/news/lorde-beats-james-arthur-claim-number-single-071425114.html Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/lorde-interview_n_3644831.html Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2013/10/10/chart-topper-lorde-weary-of-anti-miley-label/ Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/5847790/the-year-in-pop-macklemore-ryan-lewis-and-lorde-take-on-the-one Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202224253/http://monitorlatino.com.mx//Charts/Ingles1111201311172013.html to http://monitorlatino.com.mx//Charts/Ingles1111201311172013.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206021007/http://fdr.com.ua/compilation/P/608/ to http://fdr.com.ua/compilation/P/608/ Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?content_selector=riaa-news-gold-and-platinum&news_month_filter=5&news_year_filter=2013&id=C19496E7-CEC0-C453-D8A1-BD80E56E610F Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011448/http://at.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 to http://at.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011451/http://nl-be.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 to http://nl-be.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140418234153/http://fi.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 to http://fi.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419020504/http://fr.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 to http://fr.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419020515/http://it.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 to http://it.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419025124/http://lu.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 to http://lu.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419020705/http://pt.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 to http://pt.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419012913/http://sg.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 to http://sg.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140418234152/http://es.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 to http://es.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140323134705/http://de.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 to http://de.7digital.com/artist/lorde/release/royals-1 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419142809/http://www.radioairplay.fm/RadioDate/PublicDetails/41220/ to http://www.radioairplay.fm/RadioDate/PublicDetails/41220 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: 5 June 2024). 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) 02:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Royals (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/20150106041917/http://www.themagazine.ca/2013/09/16/cher-lloyd-and-friends-bring-i-wish-tour-to-toronto/ to http://www.themagazine.ca/2013/09/16/cher-lloyd-and-friends-bring-i-wish-tour-to-toronto/ 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: 5 June 2024). 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) 17:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Racism controversy

@De88: @Sportomanokin: Upon its release, "Royals" garnered controversy for allegedly being racist. This significant controversy is never mention in this article, and that's a problem. The controversy should be mention for at least a paragraph or two, and it the article can certainly include quotes from articles that defend the song from charges of racism. -- MagicatthemovieS

This controversy was from one blogger not even notable enough for a Wikipedia article, on a politicised blog, Feministing. Flores calls herself a "Immigrant queer femme rabble-rouser" on Twitter, where the stuff she calls racist (I can't link a twitter search but just go with it) could go on forever. It's no surprise that this writer and this minor blog call something racist, just like it's no surprise when The Daily Stormer will call something "degenerate" or "Jewish", or Breitbart call something "liberal". Flores' blog post was referenced by other media, but the fact that most rebuked her means that this is best put for the article on Feministing/Flores rather than being taken as a serious piece of music criticism. There are also third-party articles about 4chan thinking a kids' show is anti-white (because that's what 4chan do with anything) [3] which was removed by consensus from the article about that show. See some of the arguments there: "WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and potentially libelous. We should not be giving a soapbox to a non-noteworthy fringe conspiracy. The agenda-driven issue doesn't become noteworthy and important simply because a few sources that are arguably more mainstream have started mocking it". This is it in a nutshell. It's a fringe view guided by one woman's politics, and the third-party coverage was debunking it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Royals (song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Ral 33 (talk · contribs) 00:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Hello, I am Ral_33 and I will be reviewing this GA nomination. Please contact me on my talk page if you have questions. Ral 33 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC) Updates 14 Dead links. This is an alarming amount. Nothing alarming in reference and copyright checks To do  Done Copyright violation checks  Done Reference checks  Done Validity checks  Done Flow of article check  Done Statistical check  Done Link Checks  Done Final decision Thoughts N 14 Dead links Y Good intro and history Y Sortable wikitables, something I advocate for Y Large amount of sources

Rolling Stone source labelling the song as 'hushed low-fi pop-rap'.

Here. I want to add this, but the lens of the song's page is hip-hop influence (rather than being rap) and commentary however, so I don't want to be contradictory, but Rolling Stone said this, a well-known magazine. --69.47.9.70 (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kurt St Thomas.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Dirty Grass

The Baltimore bluegrass band "The Dirty Grass Players" debuted their version of this song at the Hot August Music Festival in 2019 (Oregon Ridge Park). 2601:14A:503:6480:B96A:B097:8CE8:73B (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2024

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: moved. Opposition was based solely on the fact that the proposed title was incomplete disambiguation, but no attempts were made to rebut the claims that the pageview disparity justified a WP:PDAB. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Royals (Lorde song) → Royals (song) – clear WP:PRIMARYPDAB, other gets 2 views/day vs hundreds Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Songs has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Alternative music has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Pop music has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: ealand Wikipedians' notice board has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Lorde has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject New Zealand/Music task force has been notified of this discussion. Векочел (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Support – This article has a ~196:1 pageview ratio with the Paul Rey song. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. The difference in page views (174:1) is so overwhelming one wonders why this was even contested. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Royals (song) represents incomplete disambiguation and should redirect to the Royals#Entertainment dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Support per above. "Royals" (Paul Rey song) hardly supports notability anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support per above, the big discrepancy in views means this move would be good for the readers. Toadspike [Talk] 02:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Making Royals (song) redirect to Royals#Entertainment doesn't make sense given the WP:PDABPRIMARY. That's what the hat note is for, e.g. in the given example, Thriller (album) — Jon (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear incomplete disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2024 (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.