Talk:Legendary Lovers (song)
| Former good article | Legendary Lovers (song) was one of the Music good articles , but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Audio sample needs trimming
[edit ]The audio sample of "Legendary Lovers" is currently of the length 26 seconds. However, guidelines listed in WP:SAMPLE state that the length should be no more than 10% of the original one, and thus through calculation, the maximum audio sample for this song can be of 20.64/20 seconds. WikiRedactor seems to have tried to reduce it but the changes have not been implemented for some technical error perhaps. I have tagged the non free file page. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
- I'd appreciate if someone did that for me because my Audacity version is always crashing and I don't know why. prism △しろさんかく 15:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
- I've heard before that a maximum of 30 seconds is acceptable, although I'm not sure if this is a set in stone policy. My apologies for the broken sample; for some reason, I never seem to get it right and my computer tells me otherwise. If someone could assist us with that, it would be greatly appreciated! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
- I took the matter into my own hands and I have trimmed it now :) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
GA worthy
[edit ]This article is worth to be a GA, but, why was it delisted? Simon (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
- Because it does not meet WP:NSONGS and this was promoted to GA too early. Seems a bit limited in coverage, anyway. It was nominated for deletion after being delisted, but that ended in no consensus. I figured I'd wait things out a bit, and then use "proposed merge". SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 13:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
Requested move 13 January 2018
[edit ]- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Malformed request. Legendary Lovers (Katy Perry song) Legendary Lovers (Katy Perry song) is a redirect, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary Lovers (2nd nomination). We don't move redirects. wbm1058 (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
Legendary Lovers (Katy Perry song) → Legendary Lovers – Noticed a redirect on my watchlist was moved to an incorrect namespace by In ictu oculi (notice the space before the end parenthesis, because Legendary Lovers (Katy Perry song) without the space already exists). Moved to make way for an insignificant disambiguation page Ss 112 19:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Ss112 and Bkonrad: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
- The song is a redirect and it is not obvious that the disambiguation page is "insignificant". older ≠ wiser 22:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
- @In ictu oculi: I had moved the redirect to title without a space. Anthony Appleyard unhelpfully moved it back to the version with the space. There is no question whatsoever that the space is incorrect. However, as a redirect, I don't think it is obvious that it should take precedence over a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 22:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comments left by AfC reviewers
[edit ]- Comment: The sources don't indicate that the song is notable, just that it exists as part of Prism. None of the reliable, independent sources cover the song in any depth. This appears to be a classic case of WP:REFBOMBING. Lots of trivial mentions don't add up to notability. WidgetKid Converse 04:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- Comment: Do be aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary Lovers (2nd nomination) veko. (user | talk | contribs) [he/him] 14:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Still fails notability
[edit ]9 years ago, this was redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary Lovers (2nd nomination), and nothing has since come up that would warrant restoring a main space entry. Don't be fooled by the sheer number of references used; most merely contain a minor passing mention of the track or just go off unreliable commentary from fans that would fail WP:USERG. Only one credible piece even gives cumulative paragraph not simply constituting speculation or a brief part of an album review. It thus continues to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, meaning a restoration was unwarranted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- Delisted good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- C-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/04 May 2026
- Accepted AfC submissions
- C-Class Katy Perry articles
- Low-importance Katy Perry articles
- WikiProject Katy Perry articles
- C-Class Pop music articles
- Low-importance Pop music articles
- Pop music articles
- C-Class song articles
- C-Class Women in music articles
- Low-importance Women in music articles
- WikiProject Women in Music articles