The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Billie Eilish, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Billie Eilish on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Billie EilishWikipedia:WikiProject Billie EilishTemplate:WikiProject Billie EilishBillie Eilish articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Under the above mentioned section, it is stated that the song was released in Italy on April 30, 2021 through UMG, but the cited source says it was released by EMI. Am I missing something? dxneo (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay Cybertrip. However, here it clearly states that "Lunch" was sent to radio by UMG and not any of its subsidiaries. Why isn't UMG on the infobox if this was the case? Yes, it is the parent company but it does not take credit for everything. An artist can be signed to UMG for distribution and Sony for management. dxneo (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 hours ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The article is not being properly maintained and there seem to be a number of issues. The release dates in some countries are not mentioned in the prose at all. The credits to the masterers and mixers also find no mention in the actual article text. The commercial performance section is outdated, for some reason only covering certifications "as of April 2024". Most certifications like Brazil, Denmark, France, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, and Spain find no mention in that section, which puzzlingly focuses on irrelevant one-week figures instead. Entire performances are completely missing a mention in the article. So it fails the featured article criteria 1b and 1c. As it stands, this will be moved to featured article review in a few weeks if things don't change substantially. NØ19:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Z1720: Unfortunately, the article has not been touched at all with regards to addressing my concerns. So yes, this should not be an FA in its current condition.--NØ03:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MaranoFan: In that case, can you nominate this to WP:FAR? I would do it myself but FAR only lets editors nominate an article once a week, with a maximum of five nominations open at one time, so it would take a long time for me to nominate it. Also, if you nominate the article you can describe the concerns more effectively than I. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
_(cropped).jpg){kind=small}
