Talk:Cheap Thrills (song)

Source

• http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/6813528/sia-cheap-thrills-new-single-rihanna-this-is-acting ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Lebanon

Resolved

I removed the Lebanon chart since no source is provided. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It is now, another believer 5.0.136.8 (talk)

Thanks for pointing out. Marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Single?

There is edit warring re: whether or not this song is the album's second single. Let's discuss here. Please provide reliable sources specifically calling "Cheap Thrills" the album's second official single. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Colombia\Costa Rica

who the f is removing the charts of both countries? what is he up to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.155.25.79 (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be Afavoritaweb, with the edit summary "Los 40 Principales is not a official record chart. It must be avoided according to Wikipedia as 'it is a single network chart documenting playlist frequency on the same network'".[1] - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

About Colombia and Costa Rica charts

Hi, I see some insistence on adding those charts. The fact is, according to the page Wikipedia:Record charts, which provides guidance about the suitability of music charts for inclusion in Wikipedia articles both in article prose and in the standard tables of charts, Los 40 Principales is a deprecated chart.

On the section "Deprecated charts" (charts to avoid) it is written:

* Los 40 Principales. Single network chart documenting playlist frequency on the same network.

In other words, the chart reflects only the airplay on the radio itself and not in the country.

Colombia has its official chart for singles which is the National-Report. This chart has been accepted by Wikipedia and used on other pages (for example: "Ginza"). As for Costa Rica, there's no official record chart for singles.

Regards,

Afavoritaweb.

References

Synthesis

A series of similar edits, first by a variety of IPs (all in Damascus, Syria), now by WP:SPA SalemHanna, states "The song attained worldwide commercial success, reaching the summit of the charts in nine countries, and peaking inside the top five in twenty five nations."

This is synthesis "{combining) material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Taking this apart:

• "worldwide" - based on the charts, the "world" is, essentially, Europe (Bulgaria, Ireland, Israel, Scotland and Sweden; see below). Completely absent from the "summit" and "top five" are North America, South America, Africa and Asia.
• "commercial success" - "making or intended to make a profit." The author here is assuming that the money made by the song is sufficiently beyond what was spent to promote the song and/or the artist worldwide to be a "success" in everyone and anyone's opinion. This is not supported or neutral.
• "summit of the charts in nine countries" - First of all, it's five, not nine. The Australian Dance, Denmark Digital Songs, Greece Digital Songs and Portugal Digital Songs charts are not the ones most people would equate with "topping the charts".
• "inside the top five in twenty five nations" - Again, this requires a good bit of twisting: top radio play, Venezuela English, etc. Why the top five? To generate the most impressive number, presumably.

Basically, this is synthesis designed to depict the song as the MOST VERY POPULARIST SONG IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE WORLD EVVVVVVR!!!

Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

SalemHanna: This is your final opportunity to discuss the issue. If you restore the edit again without discussing the issue first, you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016

! scope="row"| Croatia (Airplay Radio Chart Top 20) | 1 |-

References

Glyderons31 (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Stick to sources! Paine  06:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

SalemHanna sockpuppetry

SalemHanna was blocked for edit warring and repeated addition of unsourced synthesis, discussed above.

During their block, they decided to evade their block with the new account Eugene1990 and mix in some personal attacks. This, of course, resulted in the block being upped to indefinite.

Since then, they have been back without logging in several times (5.0.52.248, 5.0.91.188, 5.155.71.34, 5.155.201.212, 5.155.198.47...). Per WP:EVADE, I have reverted all of their edits. If the block evasion persists, I might ask for a range block here.

If, OTOH, the editor wishes to discuss the issues without block evasion, edit warring and personal attacks, they have one (and only one) avenue available: log on under their original user name, SalemHanna, and request an unblock as explained on theiruser talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

For more info, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SalemHanna. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: FWIW, 5.155.54.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has asked me to re-add the Bulgaria reference on my talk page, perhaps this should be added to the SPI? Rwessel (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Rwessel, but there is little to be gained by putting the IPs through SPI. By the time the case is up, they've moved on. The best we can do is tag them by adding {{IPSOCK|SalemHanna}} to the IP's talk page and move on. This adds them to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SalemHanna which shows the known accounts and IPs they've used (over 20, so far). - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

List of random performances

The third paragraph has devolved into a random list of performances. Yes, I'm sure they are all true, but that is hardly the point. Suppose we were working on 40 (song). Would we have a list of the hundreds or thousands of times the band has performed the song? Certainly not. The only reason to list them here is the unencyclopedic mission of filling out the article. The argument goes something like this:

"We don't list them at (for example) "40" because that one has been performed publicly so many times. This song has been performed less often, so we should list the performances because... um... if we don't, we won't have the list."

We certainly mention (with sources) when there is something particularly noteworthy about a performance history of a song. An artist refuses to perform the song on the tour for that album (for whatever reason), the song is regularly used as the last song in concerts, a live performance on TV had altered lyrics due to demands from censors, etc. Other than that, though, it's cruft. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Remixes, Russian Charts, and Youtube Views

For the newest charts in Russia, Cheap Thrills is at 58 instead of 79. http://tophitru.com/airplay_week.shtml?week_st=1465246800 You may check for newer charts if needed.

Also, there's not a section of a listing of the remixes uploaded on Youtube on April 10-12, 2016 and the new featuring Nicky Jam remix on June 17, 2016.

Playlist of Remixes (Created by SiaVevo) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbxg9IbgCVkTycPIemWqoFQ90uplge6N3

Nicky Jam Remix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsHjVTy3mTE

Lastly, an update on Youtube views. Her lyric video has reached about 280 million views:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYh-n7EOtMA Her performance edit video has about 95 million:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31crA53Dgu0 You may check for official counts. Derekhero0178 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Derekhero0178

Charts and 2 Song Versions

Not in all nation is the version with Sean Paul in the Charts for example in Switzerland is only Sia or in New Zealand too, i mean thay bust be in 2 Categories --Seescedric (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Key

If this follows the vi-IV-I-V chord progression going F#-D-A-E then this will be in the key of A Major, not F-sharp minor. F-sharp is the sixth which makes I the A chord. I am new to editing here so I wanted to ask first and see if someone else agrees. The only thing that needs changed is the key from F-sharp minor to A Major. Thanks.Ozymo (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Ozymo

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016

The key of this song is A Major, not F-sharp minor. It starts on the sixth degree of the A Major scale, which is F-sharp, but if this follows the vi-IV-I-V chord progression, (which it does and is stated correctly in the article) then the I chord will be A Major. Please change "is written in the key of F♯ minor" to "is written in the key of A Major" Thanks. I'm new and don't know how to do links yet, but I do have a doctorate in music.

Ozymo (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Possible true, but we need some source for now or someone to verify this somehow. Leaving marked as "unanswered" for now though. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Ozymo. Right now, the F# Major is coming from this source, which states that the "Original Published Key" is F# Minor. If we change the text to "is written in the key of A Major" as you suggest, it would contradict this source. With that being said, I definitely do not think that this source is the most reliable place for this kind of information, and it seems that the F# Minor might be referring to that specific sheet music, not the actual song. Do you have an alternative source that explicitly verifies that the song is written in A Major? If not, but you still think the article is mistaken, I am inclined to simply remove the information about the key. Mz7 (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The statement in the article is not wrong, but it is unclear. First of all, and despite what the source says, it is not entirely clear that the song is in F♯ minor (not major!): the chord progression does not permit to decide. F♯m–D–A–E could be read either as i–VI–III–VII in F♯ minor or as vi–IV–I–V in A major. Whoever wrote the paragraph apparently chose for the first, saying on the one hand that the song is in F♯ and on the other hand that this progression is a variation of vi–IV–I–V. It is at first puzzling that the paragraph links to still another progression, I-V-vi-IV, but the fact is that vi-IV-V-I is more than once mentioned there, as the sensitive female chord progression (???), and many cases of the vi-IV-I-V progression (including Cheap Thrills) are mentioned in the List_of_songs_containing_the_I–V–vi–IV_progression. In view of the fact that the key remains unclear, I'd suggest the following formulation:

"Cheap Thrills" is written in common time with a tempo of 90 beats per minute. The song's chord progression, F♯m–D–A–E, may be read either as i-VI-III-VII in F♯ minor or, more likely, as vi-IV-I-V in A major; it is a variant of the I–V–vi–IV_progression.

Both readings are documented: the one in F♯ by the article under discussion and by its (unreliable?) reference indicating the key of F♯ minor; the one in A major by the inclusion of the song in the List of songs containing the I–V–vi–IV progression. I won't make the change myself, though: it should first be validated by someone more versed in rock harmony. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"A top-ten hit worldwide..."?

This claim is WP:SYN. It is also simply false. The countries that are not listed account for more of the world's population than those on the list. The song reached the top 10 in zero countries in South America and Africa. It's just another pop song. Get over it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2016

112.134.86.110 (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC) The song is Bhangra, not Synthpop.

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)