Talk:The Weeknd/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Associated acts

The following discussion 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.

I see the last discussion has moved to the talk page. If an "association" is not discussed in the article, it is not both "significant and notable to this artist's career" as is stated in the template's documentation (template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts). Just because they worked on three songs does not mean that the association was "significant and notable to this artist's career". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, Benarnold98 (talk · contribs) you are not familiar with the template's documentation. I have listed the salient parts of them here. There is no way that just because someone did three songs with someone, but no one has written about those associations—at least not enough to include some prose about those interactions—the association are not "significant and notable to this artist's career". Prove otherwise with more than just a count of songs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I don't care either way if Lil Uzi Vert is included in Abel's associated acts section or not, but their work together is mentioned in this article in the 2016-2018 section. Furthermore, he is included on Lil Uzi Vert's associated acts. --Osh33m (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. The term was different than the one added to the infobox. Mentioned twice in one paragraph. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: As correctly stated by @Osh33m:, Lil Uzi Vert is mentioned on two occasions in the article. The Weeknd is also in the Associated Acts section on Lil Uzi Vert's article. Users clearly agree with this which is why it is still there, so I'm unsure why you feel Lil Uzi Vert should not be mentioned in The Weeknd's associated acts. As well as having multiple songs together, they toured together. See the first two paragraphs of this section of Lil Uzi Vert's article if you are unfamiliar with this. You seem to be the only person against Lil Uzi Vert appearing in the Associated Acts section. Both myself and @Osh33m: agree that he should be in this section. I hope this improves your understanding and Lil Uzi Vert can be added once again. Benarnold98 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether users who don't know the guidelines agree with it or not, it's clearly not an association that is "significant and notable to this artist's career". Make the point without relying on "other stuff exists" on Wikipedia as reason. Show me how the association was significant and notable to this artist's career via sources or drop it. Also, I mentioned that it was discussed in two sentences in a larger paragraph. Osh33m mentioned that it was in the 2016-2018 section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Lil Uzi Vert, again? The case still has not been met that their interaction is significant and notable. If it were, there would be more written about it here. Right? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

One thing further, WP:COMMONKNOWLEDGE is not appropriate. Document the significant and notable relationship or leave it out of the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I already have mentioned the significant and notable relationship many times, furthermore, users such as Osh33m agree with me. Furrthermore, The Weeknd is mentioned on Lil Uzi Vert's associated acts. He so obviously should be featured there. Benarnold98 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned is not enough! Supply sources to show the interaction is significant and notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no requirement for two artists to be listed on each other's associated acts for neatness or balance. It's entirely possible for Artist A to be highly significant in Artist B's career, while Artist B is a very minor connection to Artist A.

Regarding Lil Uzi Vert, to me it looks like the Weeknd collaborated with him on the 2017 song "UnFazed", and made an unimportant cameo appearance in a 2017 video. That's not enough to list as associated acts. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense to me. If Artist A had a highly significant impact in Artist B's career, why would the impact not have the same effect the other way around? --Osh33m (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Cliff Richard rose to fame in the UK (and lesser extend the rest of the world) in the late fifties and early sixties. After he was famous, he did duets with several female singers. Their careers took off because of the duets. They had no effect on his career. He should be listed in their infoboxes, but they should not be listed in his (although I see that the first (Olivia Newton-John) is. The two later in his career should not appear on either as both artists were established by this time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair or sensible to say those duets had "no" effect on his career. The fact that he collaborated with female singers at all means that he was adding events to his own tenure as a performer which most likely did have an impact. --Osh33m (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an opinion will cut it. In the case of Cliff Richard, he was already a top-selling performer and the duets added nothing to his career. They were so inconsequential, that they're not even discussed in his article (despite the duets charting well). In the case of Tesfaye, show it with sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well you are also just stating your opinion, aren't you? Anyway, like I said in September last year I don't care one way or another whether Lil Uzi Vert is included on Abel's Associated Acts section or not, but it should be based on the fact that Abel is included on his. This is just the argument for WP: Consistency. --Osh33m (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Am I? My opinion actually is that the parameter should be removed from the infobox. What I am doing here is explaining the current consensus on how the parameter should be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to when you said "they had no effect on his career." --Osh33m (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I see. You'll notice that none are discussed in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What I also noticed about wikipedia is that every single detail about every single musician isn't included in every single one of their articles. Anyway, I've said my piece. --Osh33m (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That principle is known as WP:NOTNEWS. We should only be writing about the events that are significant and notable to this artist's career. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I was going by the principle of WP: Consistency. --Osh33m (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

First, the page you linked to (both times) is a dab. There is no policy, no guideline, no principle and no expectation of reciprocal data between articles. Someone can be vital to the launching of one artist's career and have no effect on the other artist's career, not even meriting a mention or a footnote. I could give many more examples, but that principle is self-apparent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it was always a dab, but doesn't it link to consistency as a breakdown in other topics? I still disagree about collaborating having "no effect" on a bigger artist's career, but I also already told you three times now that I don't care if Lil Uzi Vert is included or not on Abel's associated acts. What else do you want to discuss here? --Osh33m (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You can still disagree about some asymmetrical collaborations, but you are clearly in the minority. 07:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing clear about a majority or minority here since it has been only me and you back and forth. Also if you're still on about the whole "no effect" thing then it's irrelevant to the actual point of this section which means there is nothing else to say. --Osh33m (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There really is. @Binksternet: to state it again so it's not just me v. you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There really is what? @Binksternet: hasn't said anything here for a week but if you're counting everyone who participated, then it's 2 v. 2 because @Benarnold98: thinks Lil Uzi Vert should be on Abel's AA list too. And that is what the point of this section's discussion is, but for the fourth time now I am telling you I do not care whether he is included or not. So why do you insist on prolonging this discussion? What are you trying to get out of this? --Osh33m (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What does a week matter, the editor made a clear statement, and WP:NOTVOTE. The point we're discussing here is not whether or not Lil Uzi Vert and the Weeknd should be associated acts (which they clearly should not be) but whether someone can make a significant and notable contribution to someone else's career without it being significant and notable to their own; a reciprocal "association" effect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Are we still here? I took a look around the interwebs and found nothing to support Lil Uzi Vert as an artist closely interconnected with the Weeknd. Sources don't talk about the two of them working together frequently. This isn't a math exercise with automatic listing as "associated artist" after some number of collabs; it's supposed to summarize how the artists are portrayed in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I was just using your own logic against you and I can't believe I have to repeat myself so much. You want to bring back someone who hasn't said something for several days, that's perfectly fine, but if you do, then you also have to count in everyone else too. And that means two for, two against. The only reason we are discussing this at all is because Lil Uzi Vert was on Abel's AA section and then removed. That's. It. We wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise. I don't care if he's on it and I let it go. Why can't you let it go? --Osh33m (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If you wanted to let it go, you would not keep coming back here.

I understand that these two do not have an actual association. I understand that someone can make a significant and notable contribution to someone else's career without it being significant and notable to their own. Two clearly separate issues, and in both cases, you've come down on the wrong side of logic an opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I could say the same thing about you (you keep coming back here), so going by your own logic again, I guess that means you don't want to let it go. This is the talk section of The Weeknd. Not every contribution every artist ever made to another's has had the same impact. It all varies. Being that this section is for Abel, it's completely irrelevant here. This section is for debating whether Lil Uzi Vert belongs on his AA list. I am not demanding that he is. I am not editing the article to make it so. That's. It. From there the only logic that can be drawn is that the discussion is over. Yet you insist on continuing it. And you still didn't answer my question: what are you trying to gain from prolonging this already ended dispute? --Osh33m (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I keep coming back because this article is on my watchlist and you keep addressing me. You said that you had let it go, I have not. Again, another clear difference that you don't understand. The only thing I have to gain is that you understand consensus and how the associated acts field works. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you see me editing Lil Uzi Vert to Abel's AA section? Hell, you can even look at my edit history; do you see anything like that at all in the past month? --Osh33m (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not care how you edit. It is your thought process that I am trying to influence. You still incorrectly think that the relationship between these two performers qualifies as an associated act. You still think that if a relationship is significant and notable to one artist's career, it is reciprocally significant and notable to the other artist's career. Until you clearly understand those things, I will continue to write. Until you stop writing you will not have proven to me that you have actually let anything about this subject go. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My stance on consensus and associated acts is not your problem. If you don't care how I edit then you shouldn't care at all what I think and how I operate as an editor on Wikipedia. --Osh33m (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That's where you are wrong again. We should all care how everyone else edits, that's why we even have the concept of good and bad edits and can revert bad edits. I'm not trying to get you to agree with my opinion. I am stating the community consensus on these things and trying to confirm that you understand them and will correctly apply them. Are you essentially saying you have little interest in working collaboratively, have a conflict of attitude or intention with the community, and do not value the project's actual aims and methods? That's what I'm reading in all of your responses. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not see myself being wrong in the first place. And what I said was just a followup to what you said, that you don't care how I edit. All I was saying is that if that is the case, therefore then you shouldn't care at all what I think or how I operate. And now you are putting words in my mouth linking to WP:NOTHERE with that incredibly long accusation. I have edited on Wikipedia for over 10 years. I've collaborated with other editors plenty of times to get work done. I've had my fair share bumped heads too, but so have many others. What I'm reading in your responses is that you're trying to rile me up and instigate unprofessionalism out of me. --Osh33m (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm convinced that your incorrect understanding will cause the community problems in the future and you downplaying it here is simply subterfuge. Happy editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Here you go again with these allegations. I have added a good amount to The Weeknd article alone and I don't appreciate you accusing me of essentially not wanting to be a team player. You don't know me. You don't know what I "understand". I have never caused community problems in the past, I've always tried to avoid them in the present, and will certainly continue to do so in the future. So whatever it is that you're convinced of, it's just you telling yourself. If this is the end of it, then bye. Happy editing. --Osh33m (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My opinion doesn’t particularly matter here since I haven’t gotten involved in this subject here but it seems like across Wikipedia, associated acts seem to come down to editors’ own subjective perception of it and people argue ad infinitum. There are people who refuse to believe that an executive producer of an album is an associated act. We will never be free. Trillfendi (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I know what you've written and it does not correspond with the accepted approach. So whatever you claim, as long as you don't stray from the accepted standards, we will not have problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought we were done here after we said "happy editing" to each other. Anyway, I know what you have written too. And going by the input @Trillfendi: said above, I am inclined to believe that there is no "accepted standard" and you are just going by what you believe is the most appropriate encyclopedically. There are disagreements over who belongs in any artist's AA section and no one will always agree even if more than one side is being rational. You also contradicted yourself when you said you do not care how I edit. Later on you said we should all care how everyone else edits. --Osh33m (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If you think that there is not standard, I suggest that you try changing the documentation to align it with your misinterpretation. Or perhaps suggest the change on the template's talk page. Multiple discussions at Template talk:Infobox album have clearly stated that they should not be listed in album infoboxes, so either Trillfendi is being sarcastic or there is something else missing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

...So should I take your response as confirmation that your "Happy editing" comment did not really mean that you're done here? Anyway, why would another editor be sarcastic in an ongoing discussion? What @Trillfendi: said makes sense to me. The actual guidelines of Wikipedia are not perfect. They never have been and never will be and have seen reform numerous times throughout the years on the internet. Illangelo got removed from Abel's AA list too, probably just because of this bogus requirement of how often he is mentioned in the article when in reality he's one of Abel's longest running collaborators as a producer just like Don McKinney. The section is called "Associated Acts" not "List of people mentioned the most in the musician's article."

This condescending attitude of yours won't get you anywhere with me. You can't act as if every single edit you have ever made has been the most correct one and never went unchallenged. And as I pointed out, you contradicted yourself in your conversation with me. --Osh33m (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You have finally got something right. My happy editing comment was wishing you well and wishing you'd be done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2021 (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.

Tesfaye vs. the Weeknd

May I know why the bulk of the article refers to the Weeknd by his legal last name, while he is better known by his stage name? HĐ (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@HĐ: this was a decision made I think over a year ago that the article would look more professional if it was written as his legal name instead of his stage name. --Osh33m (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Super Bowl Performance

Although met with mixed responses, perhaps it would be fair to note that his sales were up by 385% following the performance (as stated by many major music news sources). Donnythedons (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Done --Osh33m (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Up year-over-year, a single day, or for some specific time period? This is trite, bordering on WP:FANCRUFT and WP:RECENTISM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So revert it, then. I don't care for it that much and the information is included in the article for the half time show anyway. --Osh33m (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Layout

MOS:LAYOUT says to avoid too many short sections because it interferes with reading. Two editors have reverted one so perhaps some consensus needs to be achieved, or at least a reason should be provided for ignoring LAYOUT's advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

From the way the article looks now there hasn't been any interference with how it reads and the most recent section (2019-present) is the longest compared to all the rest of the sections, which seem to have a comparable amount of characters meaning one is not too much longer or shorter than the rest. --Osh33m (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that you feel strongly enough about this to edit war over it. Did you notice the run-on italics that your edits have created? It's because of unmatched italics in your 2016–2018 section.

As I see it, is that you want to divide the article in to releases and major events. I know a lot of pop music articles do it this way like Madonna and U2, but they have a lot of content in each section. I assume this breakdown is so that [[tl|main}} can be used in each section and ignore WP:REPEATLINK. However The Beatles does not do it this way and many other articles do not. Five paragraphs per section is longer than I've seen in some pop and rock articles, but it's still unreasonably short.

So fix your mistake and then let's decide how short to make the sections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: sir, you are the one who started this edit war, not me. Yes I have noticed the run on italics and I was trying to figure out where it was so thank you for pointing it out. Now as far as sections go, the first one has 465 words, the second has 608, the third 572, the fourth 484, and the fifth is by far the longest at 945. This is what I expected; in my opinion each of the sections' lengths are comparable with the exception of the last one, and that makes it five sections instead of four and that was your first complaint; there being too many sections it is going from four to five, that is a difference of one. I really don't see what the problem is with how it is formatted now even going by MOS:LAYOUT since each section with the exception of the last are comparable. What do you propose? --Osh33m (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Osh33m: It all has to do with the grouping. I really think that BBTM and Starboy should be grouped together. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh: Alright, I just want to know why you think Beauty Madness and Starboy should be grouped together, and why Melancholy/After Hours should be grouped together. I'm not opposed to the change, I just want to understand why you think that grouping is better than what was there already. With the way it is grouped now, most sections have a comparable number of words with the exception of After Hours'. --Osh33m (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Starboy was released one year after BBTM and the recording of Starboy began shortly after the release of BBTM. Neel.arunabh (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So you just want to group the sections as two projects at a time? --Osh33m (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Osh33m: I do not think you are looking at the same edit history as me. Neel.arunabh modified the sections around 2021-02-17T17:57:40‎. Osh33m reverted 2021-02-17T23:33:34‎. I correctly applied date formats on 2021-02-18T00:29:52‎ and commented that your change was poor and resulted in too many short sections. You made the first, and only, revert. Neel.arunabh applied more changes ending 2021-02-18T02:43:52‎. Osh33m reverted changes again 2021-02-18T17:44:25‎. I called supported the longer sections by reverting at 2021-02-18T17:50:55‎. Still no edit war. Osh33m started the edit war at 2021-02-18T17:56:22‎ (second revert in under 15 minutes). I reverted again at 2021-02-18T17:57:45‎. You hit 3RR boundary at 2021-02-18T18:01:09‎ and I warned you. You are now at six reverts. Time to report. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You began the edit war when you reverted my edits. I broke down the number of words in each current section pointing how they're comparable in size with the exception of the last and haven't heard from you since then. --Osh33m (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand what an edit war is then. A third-party adding an opinion via an edit is not creating an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to bother communicating with you here if you start with that condescending attitude again. You reverted my edits three times without trying to come to a compromise after I responded to you. --Osh33m (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did not mean to come across as condescending. Please help me to understand your position by showing me the diff of where I started the edit war.

This is the point at which you had repeatedly overridden a contribution. That was your third edit in under 24 hours. The first was at 2021-02-17T23:33:34‎, the second was at 2021-02-18T17:44:25‎ and the third was at 2021-02-18T17:56:22‎. You reverted the first non-trivial edit I had made. How exactly did my revert start the edit war? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

When I overrode Neel.arunabh's contributions, I would have expected a reasoning if he were to revert his edits back. But from what I can tell, my edit was reverted without any reason given and that is why I proceeded to revert it again. You mentioned during the edits that the sections were becoming too short and that's why I mentioned word count on this talk section. Neel also mentioned that Beauty Madness and Starboy should be consolidated, presumably to have two sections at a time. If that is the case then yes I think the article would have a standard format in the career section although I still prefer how it is now. But if the consensus is to move it in the other way then I'll join the consensus. I am always willing to work things out as long as there is a mutual respect. --Osh33m (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, not to be accused of being condescending, but I wrote, "As I said, there are too many sections", so your interpretation of the facts are simply wrong. As it was my first revert, it also does not start nor constitute an edit war, does it? I have a different reason for preferring Neel.arunabh's version, but again, that does not mean it is an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I really think that ban was preemptive, we could have just talked it out here. I understood that you said there are too many sections, and my response to you was that the number of sections reduced was only one; it went from 5 to 4 sections and the previous layout had a comparable number of words per each section except for the last. Anyway, @Neel.arunabh: I moved the sections back to your contribution, I think this is the way it was then. --Osh33m (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yet your first edit back was to revert to your preferred version. You are not interested in talking about it but enforcing your version. I'm reporting it. In short, you're not willing to talk it out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Your first edit back was to restore some version of the article without explanation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC

Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Noted by whom?

"Noted for his versatility in vocal style,[2] music production, and eccentric presentation,[3] the Weeknd is often cited as an influence to contemporary music, as well as by other artists" If these "other artists" are being mentioned as doing this "as well", then who is doing the noting and citing in the first place? --Khajidha (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Ariana Grande

@Walter Görlitz: Why do you keep reverting others' edits? As I said in my edit summary, Grande and The Weeknd have 3 collaborations: Love Me Harder, Off the Table, and Save Your Tears (Remix). What documentation are you referencing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylx (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The documentation is Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts. How does it meet the requirements? How are they significant to The Weeknd's career? They were both established musicians at the point of the release of all three so from my vantage point, the career of neither was bolstered in any significant way as a result of these interactions. In fact, the remix is a financial transaction and the two did not work together to release the work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How come The Weeknd is an associated act in Grande's article, but Grande isn't an associated act in this article? -- dylx^{(t | c)} 18:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts states that Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together should be included. Grande fulfills this. -- dylx^{(t | c)} 18:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Appearing on another article is not a valid article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Grande meets the same criteria as Lil Uzi Vert, does she not? ~~To my knowledge, Lil Uzi Vert and The Weeknd have 2 collaborations: UnFazed and Heartless (Remix).~~ -- dylx^{(t | c)} 12:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It is similarly contested. Thank you for confirming that it too does not belong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It is strange wording to call the Save your tears remix a "financial transaction." The definition of a collaboration, which the remix is, is to work alongside someone to produce a solution. It is wrong on all fronts to say they didn't work together in any capacity to release the remix. --Osh33m (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that my wording was strange, but to your point, at no time was Grande in a studio with this artist. Most remixes are done by an artist after all of the first artist's work has been completed. That is the case here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand that the remix may have been produced remotely in its entirety, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the two artists literally worked together to produce it. Just because they may have not been physically together during production doesn't negate the remix as a collaboration. --Osh33m (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Prove that they actually worked together. They may not have even spoken or emailed each other. the way it usually works is that once primary artist's production team finishes with the tracks, they are handed off to A&R. They make the decision which tracks to promote as singles, and which tracks, if any, would be a good candidate for a remix. Occasionally the remixing team will contact the primary artist's production team about doing a remix of a track. Contracts are signed, etc., and the "stems" are passed to the remixing artist. AT no point would the primary artist and primary artist even meet. So, once again, you'll have to provide a reliable source that the Weeknd and Grande actually connected.

The other thing that you consistently forget is the second part of the criteria: how is this significant to this artist's career? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't "consistently forget" anything. I'd really like if you stop making these accusations when conversing here. It hinders positive cooperation. My input isn't about whether Ariana belongs in Abel's AA section.

Secondly, the proof of them working together is that the Save your tears remix exists. I have provided to you the dictionary's definition of "collaboration," and nearly every single publication of the remix describes the song as exactly that, a collaboration between the two of them. Going by your logic (that they apparently didn't work together), the song isn't a collaboration - which challenges those publications. If you try to make the argument with anyone else that the Save your tears remix isn't a collaboration between Ariana Grande and The Weeknd I doubt anyone else will be convinced of that. I don't think there is a need to hypothesize which person from either artist's party contacted the other throughout the entire process, because that sort of trail can be chased for any time an artist has a feature on a track.

Providing the dictionary definition again here: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/collaborate --Osh33m (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to imply you miss details. In short, the fact that a song exists is not proof that they two worked together. Grande (and most likely her production team) worked on tracks, they did not work together. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You aren't fooling me with your incessant haughty attitude. In conclusion, there are at least four sources stating that Abel and Ariana collaborated. Since we have defined "collaboration," this means there are at least four sources stating that Abel and Ariana worked together. You choosing to disregard that logic is your own prerogative but the fact of the matter is that these artists worked together to produce the Save your tears remix. --Osh33m (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I was not trying to fool you, nor do I have a haughty attitude. In conclusion just because two names appear on a recording does not mean that they two worked together on it. I think I need to remind you of several duet albums that were released that included people who had died years earlier. You have show that they worked on the same song (hence collaborated) but not that actually worked together. yes, wikilawyering. And yes, it's not significant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"I was not trying to fool you, nor do I have a haughty attitude." Then why did you feel the need to say I miss details, after I already said I am not here to debate whether Ariana belongs on Abel's AA section? It honestly feels really condescending.

"In conclusion just because two names appear on a recording does not mean that they two worked together on it." Nope. This is just wrong. I have done my research and shown you several sources that state they work together. It is you, and only you, saying that this can't be considered a collaboration unless they were in the studio together. In a world where a good portion of the workforce has become remote yet team meetings take place to get work done, I find this sentiment to be nonsensical to say the least.

"You have show that they worked on the same song (hence collaborated) but not that actually worked together." I've shown you twice now that the definition of collaboration is to work with someone. And like I said, I have done my research and proven that sources confirm the Save your tears remix as a collaboration. Some have even went on to say it is in fact the third collaboration between the two of them, so all you're doing here is challenging these sources. On the flip side, maybe you should try and show some sources that specifically state outright that they did not work together.

"yes, wikilawyering. And yes, it's not significant." Wrong again. If sources state that they collaborated then it is significant. As for this wikilawyering thing, you claim to not have a haughty attitude, yet hesitate to name call. Way to make this a friendly and cooperative place to edit. --Osh33m (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Ariana and The Weeknd have collabed more than Daft Punk and The Weeknd yet somehow Ariana doesn't meet the criteria. The lack of consistent standards here is hilarious. Deluded communist (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Deluded communist: @Osh33m: I have no clue why Walter Görlitz is even attempting to argue against this one. The Save Your Tears Remix is literally a collaboration; no form of debate is neded. There are honestly no consistent standards here. Daft Punk and Belly have collaborated with The Weeknd on two songs, the same as Lil Uzi Vert and Nav (who is also signed to The Weeknd's label and are very closely connected), yet Walter Görlitz keeps removing my edits... Benarnold98 (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue why you are focusing on "collaboration" when a) it's clear that they never actually stepped into the same room, but I'll give that to you. 2) You have yet to explain how is it significant to the Weeknd's career. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Since when does "collaboration" mean the artists have to have stepped in the room together? That is just absurd. So many artists collaborate by sending work back and forth to each other. How do you think collaborations have occurred over the past year when artists have physically been unable to step into the room together due to coronavirus? Do none of these count as collaborations?? Furthermore, three collaborations is enough proof that they are significant to each other's careers. In fact, Ariana Grande is one of three artists (not including producers) that The Weeknd has collaborated with more than anyone else, the other two being Drake and Lana Del Rey; so their collaborations are undoubtedly significant to his career. The Weeknd has also collaborated with Ariana Grande more times than Belly and Daft Punk, who are present on The Weeknd's associated acts. Why are they more significant to The Weeknd's career than Ariana Grande? There is no sense behind your standards. Benarnold98 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read the documentation. This field is for professional relationships with other notable musicians or bands that are significant to this artist's career. Later it reads collaboration act playing together. So you are focusing on the collaboration, and I am trying to get you to look at "playing together". Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You have just misquoted the source. You refer to collaboration act playing together but miss out the preceding words which actually reads: or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together. This is something completely different and isn't even in discussion. You have literally just taken words from the documentation to try and back yourself up even though it is referring to a completely different matter... In addition, this article further provides reasoning why Ariana Grande should be included. It reads: This field is for professional relationships with other notable musicians or bands that are significant to this artist's career. One of the fields that satisfies this is Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions. Ariana Grande has collaborated with The Weeknd on multiple occasions. Fact. For this reason she should be included, and there is no reason this should be debated. Nav and Lil Uzi Vert similarly satisfy this criteria. Benarnold98 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I quoted it directly. There are multiple points, but I'll take it to an RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes you quoted it directly but you used the quote for something that it did not apply to. I don't understand why, despite the clear proof, you refuse to accept these artists' inclusions. Benarnold98 (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it's not correct to do so. Aside from claiming I'm lying, misrepresenting what the guideline states and do not understand what you're talking about, do you have any other insults you want to level at me? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when it's clear to see that you took the quote out of context. The documentation specifically states, Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together, but you purposefully excluded context to push your narrative. The key word here is toured. A collaboration act playing together, i.e., in the studio, is different than a live performance. Furthermore, in the sentence I quoted above, it gives the example Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, which directly apply the artists in question! -- dylx 13:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It is your problem that you find it hard to assume good faith because the phrase was completly in context. The fact that you do not like that it is the culmination of the phrase and that you have been ignoring it is the point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been ignoring the point? Please read the rest of my response explaining my reasoning, instead of replying to the first sentence and moving on. -- dylx 19:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added her to the infobox. The consensus here is clear despite the stonewalling. -- Calidum 19:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Calidum: Thank you. Glad this has finally been resolved. Benarnold98 (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Calidum:.--Osh33m (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Genres

Is emo rap one of The Weeknd genres? This site named him as one of emo rap artist. [1] HONDA Gang (Talk) 08:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not. That isn't a good source and The Weeknd isn't even a rapper. Bowling is life (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

He is a rapper. TheWeekdayz (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I know, but he had collaboration with some emo rap artists for example Lil Uzi Vert, Future and Juice WRLD. HONDA Gang (Talk) 20:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@HondaGang: That doesn't make him an emo rap artist. Bowling is life (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Associated acts section

Yet again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Weeknd&type=revision&diff=1002930775&oldid=1002930314 No, they do not belong here. How is each one's individual involvement this subject's career both significant and notable to his career? The case is not made and Benarnold98 is doing nothing more than pushing a WP:POV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And for the record, it would be sorted "Del Rey, Lana" not "Lana". At least he admits she was an influence, but with only one work, why was she both significant and notable to his career? The article just does not support the claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There has not just been one work, as I detailed below, they have collaborated FIVE TIMES. This is clearly significant to his career. Please stop bullying me by undoing my constructive editing. Benarnold98 (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the following artists should be added to The Weeknd's Associated acts section. I have attached various links proving their significance to The Weeknd's career.
Illangelo:
Long-time collaborator, has produced and written a vast number of songs with The Weeknd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illangelo - "long time collaborator of The Weeknd"
https://genius.com/artists/Illangelo - "long time collaborator of The Weeknd", and shows the vast number of collaborations with. The Weeknd

Lil Uzi Vert:
Many collaborations, have toured together. Lil Uzi Vert's hugely famous song, XO Tour Llif3 is titled after The Weeknd's tour, and The Weeknd appears in the song's accompanying music video.

Nav:
Many collaborations, have toured together. The Weeknd has executive produced Nav's albums. Nav is signed to The Weeknd's label.

Benarnold98 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

But again, this article does not support the claims. And two associations are not usually enough. I am willing to take this to an RfC since you have not accepted the opinion of several senior editors in the music project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You also ignored the alphabetization issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

So as far as Lil Uzi Vert, four songs and a tour. How are these influential in this subject's career? Nothing has changed since the discussion above. There is no association there.

Illangelo: Wikipedia is not a reliable source and writing songs together. Are they Lennon & McCartney? I don't know because this article makes passing mention of the subject.

As for Nav, clearly this subject is influential in his career. How exactly is he influential in this subject's career? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

What can I say at this point. You asked me to take it to the talk page, which I have done, yet you report me. This is incredibly unfair. The only opinion I have not accepted is yours, because you have no idea what you are talking about. If you look back through the talk page you can see many users agreeing with me, and YOU can't accept that. Furthermore, how on earth can you possibly say four songs and a tour are not influential in the subject's career? That is hugely influential. With Illangelo, arguably the most significant of the three, if you look at the link to Genius that I attached above, you can see the vast number of songs that they have collaborated on. Why are you choosing to ignore that? It seems your stubbornness is taking over your desire for accurate information in this case. Benarnold98 (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I reported you for violating WP:3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I notice you have ignored almost everything I have just said. Please stop being stubborn; I proved my correctness. Benarnold98 (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You acting this way is very unhealthy for the community. Benarnold98 (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I notice you have ignored almost everything I have been writing for months. Please stop being stubborn and improve the article rather than argue for the subject's inclusion on the talk page. It is unhealthy for the community to do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, if you fail to self-revert or continue to argue will result in an RfC. You do not accept the project's approach so I'm happy to take it to the community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You have pretty much copied everything I said directed at you, that is so incredibly childish. How can you possibly take yourself seriously, when you do something like that? What you fail to acknowledge is that I am trying to improve the article with more accurate information, yet you are choosing to do whatever is in your power to prevent that, and that is really quite sad. You are terrorising me, and the article. Please can you respond to what I said earlier, 6 paragraphs ago, explaining my case, that you have chosen to ignore. I am still waiting for that. Benarnold98 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Lana_Del_Rey#Associated_acts, where I have proposed adding The Weeknd to Lana Del Rey's associated acts. You can see that I have proposed it in a very similar way to above, and I was treated fairly and respectfully by other users, who acknowledged and understood my points. There is clearly a bias issue here. Why am I treated fairly by other users but not you? You will do everything you can to prevent my constructive editing. You are displaying signs of bias and bullying. Please can you treat me fairly and properly consider my suggestions. Benarnold98 (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did copy it and directed at you, because it is better directed at you. I'm taking this to RfC since you're intransigent and refuse to improve the article. You are treated fairly by all users, especially me. You have not even attempted to edit constructively. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not intransigent. I am trying to improve the article to its correct form. It is you who is refusing to appreciate my contributions as you are so set in your ways that the 3 acts I am suggesting shouldn't be there. When I provide proof that they should be there you choose to completely ignore it. I don't understand why you have formed such a strong bias against me. I am not treated by you fairly in the slightest for that reason. Furthermore, every attempt I make to edit is with constructive intentions, yet you are terrorising my opportunity in doing this. You have STILL not commented on the proof I provided earlier. I keep reminding you to do this, but you continue to ignore this. Why are you ignoring the proof? Benarnold98 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought we established in a previous discussion that Lil Uzi Vert is not so closely interconnected to the Weeknd that he should be listed as an associated act in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: yes, that was my understanding as well. Apparently Benarnold98 thinks that name-calling and making false claims is how things work on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, How many time did Lil Uzi Vert and The Weeknd collaborated? If you know, name the songs. HONDA Gang (Talk) 08:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@HondaGang: See my earlier post on this thread, where I have provided links which detail their collaborations. In addition to this, I do not understand why Belly and Daft Punk count for the Associated Acts list, as they have only collaborated with The Weeknd twice; yet Lil Uzi Vert and Nav are not allowed. Literally makes no sense. Benarnold98 (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Travis Scott has one notable song with The Weeknd, which also features SZA. If Scott is on there, why isn’t SZA? The list should remain as is, with Ariana Grande added (like she already is) as Tesfaye has three successful songs with Grande. TheWeekdayz (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

And if Scott has one notable song with Tesfaye, Juice WRLD should be on there too, but he isn’t, and he won’t be added. TheWeekdayz (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I also strongly believe that Max Martin should be added, as he has collaborated with Tesfaye many times. TheWeekdayz (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That is just not true at all, Travis Scott and The Weeknd literally have 5 songs together (please see my post below), which is more than other artists; and it's not like these songs aren't notable, they have hundreds of millions of plays. I agree that neither SZA or Juice WRLD belong on there, as they only have one collaboration, thus not fitting the criteria: "Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions". However, all three of the artists in question do satisfy the criteria, and hence belong here. See my post below where I provide plenty of evidence supporting this. Benarnold98 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do you and Osh33m focus only on the number of interactions and not the main part of the documentation that states the field is for "professional relationships with other notable musicians or bands that are significant to this artist's career"? Perhaps you should start to focus on the "significant to this artist's career" part instead because "acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions" falls under a section that states "this field can include", not "this field must include" and relying on "collaborated on multiple occasions" may be your undoing. I don't want to pick a fight, but I do want you to understand why I'm opposed to 1) this many associated acts and 2) including the acts you are insisting on including here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am going to speak only for myself and say that I focus on "Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together" because it is a bullet point listed under the template for AA's which means that wikipedia suggests that this an application of this bullet point is an example of an AA being significant to an artist's career. It even starts off by saying "this can include, for example..." otherwise, anyone could subjectively decide what is significant and what is not. --Osh33m (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should not have stated that you ignore it. It seems to me that you ignore it. Could you please acknowledge the starting criteria reads "professional relationships with other notable musicians or bands that are significant to this artist's career"? Could you also please acknowledge the bullet points stated that the bullet points are preceded by the phrase "this field can include"? It seems that you're pushing that one bullet point over and against the primary criteria of 'significant to this artist's career". Once we're on the same page, we can start to discuss shortening the WP:COATRACK in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not what the criteria is saying though. The bullet points are examples of ways in which acts are significant to eachothers' careers. One example of a way in which a professional relationships are "significant to this artist's career" is when acts have "collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together". All three artists literally satisfy this, so should be allowed to feature. Benarnold98 (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

As "significant to this artist's career" is so broad, and could be interpreted many ways, it has given examples of scenarios where a relationship with another artist is significant to their career. The bullet points act as guidelines. Without the bullet points how else can we define 'significant'? People's definitions will vary for this, hence Wikipedia has provided some examples of significance. Benarnold98 (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Photo of Tesfaye

I am requesting we change the image of Abel Tesfaye on the Wikipedia article. The image is four years old, and a lot has changed in his appearance since then. I am thinking maybe a photo from a photoshoot for “After Hours”? TheWeekdayz (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issues. If you can find any photos that meet Wikipedia's copyright requirements, they could be uploaded and used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've found one which I believe is copyright-free. TheWeekdayz (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

No. It's a Getty image: https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/the-weeknd-at-the-premiere-of-a24s-uncut-gems-at-the-dome-news-photo/1193417257?irgwc=1&esource=AFF_GI_IR_TinEye_77643&asid=TinEye&cid=GI&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=TinEye&utm_content=77643 Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Then find one which is copyright-free from 2019/20. TheWeekdayz (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 May 2021

‹ The template below (Edit fully-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to The Weeknd has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting for the inclusion of Travis Scott, Lil Uzi Vert and Nav in The Weeknd's Associated Acts section. I have gained support from other users agreeing with these artists' inclusion as you can see here. One criteria for artists' inclusion is: "Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together". All three artists in question satisfy this.

1. Travis Scott: multiple collaborations and tour.

Collaborations:

Tour:

'The Madness Fall Tour'^[8]^[9]

2. Lil Uzi Vert: multiple collaborations and tour.

Collaborations:

Tour:

'Starboy: Legend of the Fall Tour'^[13]^[14]^[15]

It is also worth noting that the title of Lil Uzi Vert's hugely successful song, XO Tour Llif3, is named after this tour.

Music Video Appearances:

The Weeknd in 'XO Tour Llif3'^[16]

3. Nav: multiple collaborations, tours, label connection.

Collaborations:

'Some Way'^[17]
'Price on My Head'^[18]

Collaborations for Albums (where The Weeknd acted as Executive producer:

'Bad Habits'
'Good Intentions'

Tour:

'Starboy: Legend of the Fall Tour'^[19]^[20]

Label Association:

Nav is signed to The Weeknd's record label, XO^[21]^[22]

It is clear that these artists match the description, and thus belong in this section.
Benarnold98 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm planning an RfC, but need time to correctly format it and this "evidence" is nice, but it is not going to create consensus, which is what is needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to why you have felt the need to use speech marks; I have provided multiple sources containing factual evidence. I'm also unsure as to why you don't think consensus can't be formed, multiple users are already in favour of these artists' inclusion, more so than are not. Benarnold98 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You also responded within 4 minutes of my post, not possibly enough time for you to have checked through the sources. Benarnold98 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I second @Benarnold98:'s request. And I think it's telling once again how you put the word evidence in quotations as if you mean to dismiss everything that is up there. Pinging @TheWeekdayz: @Dylx: @Trillfendi: and @Calidum: for more input. --Osh33m (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Consensus is not a few fans who agree, as you can see from the edit history and the discussions above, there are other editors who are not convinced that all of the subject meet the criteria. The RfC will be open the whole community, not just fans. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No one said anything about being an involved as an editor here just because they're a fan. No one said that, except you. Also, the criteria is right there above the discussion. If other editors aren't convinced of the research provided, then they're just disregarding sources. --Osh33m (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

True. Sorry to assume you were a fan. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What you should be sincerely apologizing about is your unfriendliness and sarcasm. It never helps make this a cooperative environment and only makes editing more frustrating. --Osh33m (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing like that to apologize for since I am not being unfriendly nor sarcastic. What actually helps is if you actually acknowledge the criteria for inclusion and focus on how the associations are actually significant to the artist's career rather than simply counting the interactions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How can you say you are not being unfriendly or sarcastic? You just can't say this because you don't know how other people are perceiving your comments. Osh33m and I are deeming your comments to be unfriendly and sarcastic, and you cannot deny how we feel. You have also exhibited sarcasm for us all to see many times, such as your unnecessary use of quotation marks earlier in this thread. There have also been many occasions where you have just completely copied statements I've made, such as in this thread, but reversing it to me, which you even acknowledged yourself; this is just mocking. Examples like this make it hard to assume good faith; and your editing feels disruptive. You have already been seen stonewalling before on this article, in the Ariana Grande thread where you kept refusing to accept her presence in the infobox, despite a clear consensus; and you are doing the same thing once again. Benarnold98 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow what a mess. Benarnold98 provided plenty of reasons why Travis Scott, Lil Uzi Vert, and Nav with sources too. As he said, the Weeknd has collaborated with them many times. They meet the criteria for inclusion and many other editors agree that they should be included. Seriously, this is a waste of time. Benarnold98's evidence should be the end of the discussion. Bowling is life (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Seriously. I expect more from you @Bowling is life:. How are they significant to this artist's career? However, if you think that this is not a valid consideration (despite being the stated purpose of the field) I will drop my opposition and get the documentation fixed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Benarnold98: already explained to you up above how they are significant to Abel's career. I quote, "One example of a way in which a professional relationships are 'significant to this artist's career' is when acts have 'collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together'." It's almost as if you don't see what purpose these bullet points serve. And if you still think I am the one who is wrong, just remember that this is the same logic the rest of the editors used to explain why Grande belongs on the list. --Osh33m (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That's opinion, not demonstrated with sources. One artist is significant to another's when they help an artist's career (as was explained above) and I showed you how that is not always a two-way street. Such as when Bing Crosby and David Bowie sing a duet. They are simply working together, and neither is bolstering the career of the other. Significance is demonstrated when the artist is influential in changing the other artist's style or technique, such as when T Bone Burnett produced two of Bruce Cockburn's albums in the early 90s and he returned from his rock period to a more traditional folk style (and influenced his lyrical content). I can give you more examples, but all you've done is counted how many times they've performed together and asked why I can't count how many times they've performed together. It's like I'm speaking a different language. And besides, I was asking Bowling is life, so please don't answer for the other editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It is the same question you've asked both me and @Benarnold98: in the past many times already, and I have every right to continue the discussion even if the others don't respond right away. Even if this is opinion, it is a guideline set forth by wikipedia. And I didn't say I was speaking for @Bowling is life: anyway, but they already said @Benarnold98: did the work of providing sources. --Osh33m (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Except that editor is likely to answer the question rather than just tell me to count the interactions. When someone asks a direct question of an editor, that editor should usually answer it though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You reply with this tone and then wonder why other editors find you as unfriendly and condescending. They're not just interactions, they're collaborations. And the fact that these artists have collaborated numerous times with Abel is the reason why the suggested associated acts are significant to his career. Again, same logic applied to Grande belonging. --Osh33m (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: It isn't opinion though, the criteria is very clear, and these artists meet the criteria, and it literally is demonstrated with sources; I have cited countless sources. So you're definition of significant is "when they help an artist's career" and "when the artist is influential in changing the other artists's style or technique"... Where have you got this from?? And where are the sources? This is your own opinion. The actual criteria for Wikipedia is this. The artists fit this criteria. @Bowling is life: agrees with this and that "many other editors agree that they should be included". Furthermore, I have added so much evidence for these artists' inclusion and this "evidence should be the end of the discussion". I'm adding them back to the infobox. Benarnold98 (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Benarnold98: Yes, the criteria is very clear: This field is for professional relationships with other notable musicians or bands that are significant to this artist's career. Do you see that or does it just show up in my version of the documentation alone? The remainder of the section is about how they may be notable. It is not criteria of how they are notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you please cut it out with your snarky sarcasm? Yes, the criteria is clear. It states that the AA section is for acts significant in the subject's career, and one of the suggestions of said criteria is an act that has collaborated on numerous occasions with the subject. Going off of this criteria alone, the consensus here seems to be that Nav, Scott, Grande, and Uzi belong - backed up with sources provided by @Benarnold98:. Since you're arguing against the consensus, the burden is on you to prove why they aren't notable. --Osh33m (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no sarcasm. The other two "regulars" here have steadfastly refused to acknowledge its existence so I was honestly confused why I was the only one who saw it.

The consensus is simply that they have performed multiple times, not that they are actually "significant to this artist's career". That has never been proven and the WP:ONUS is on those who want to include it to prove that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

As usual, you have ignored the rationale that Osh33m has provided to support their claim. Please re-read and acknowledge their statement instead of reading the first sentence and moving on. WP:ONUS, the documentation you provided, states, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. We have demonstrated consensus, but you are avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes. (see WP:STONEWALLING.) -- dylx 13:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

As usual, you have ignored the specific template criteria. I have already listed it multiple times. The bullet points are simply ways that it may meet the documented criteria. I stand corrected on ONUS (but you still don't break backlinks). I meant WP:BURDEN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Sorry, there is no sarcasm." Earlier you asked @Benarnold98: "Do you see that or does it just show up in my version of the documentation alone? " - was this a serious question? If not, then you were being unfriendly, and sarcastic, and you know it. You are intentionally making this an unfriendly place to edit.

You are arguing against consensus. You can show as much contempt for the other editors as you want but for the purpose of this section of the Talk page, the point stands that you are arguing against consensus. Not only does everyone else who has commented here formed a consensus, but we also agree on the concept of the AA section. The concept being, the AA section for associations with other musical acts that are significant to the subject's career. The request made is for Nav, Uzi, and Scott to be included in the AA section, because their associations to the subject (Abel) have been discussed here with consensus to be significant to his career. How are these associations significant to his career? Because those acts have collaborated a considerable amount of times with the subject.

@Benarnold98: already fulfilled WP:BURDEN by providing 22 sources between three different suggested associated acts. As I said in the Grande section, you choosing to disregard the logic is your own prerogative but it is on you to make a case against the consensus. --Osh33m (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly!!! WP:BURDEN applies perfectly here. We have provided citations, the next step is consensus. You are arguing against the consensus that myself, Osh33m, Benarnold98, Bowling is life, and Calidum have built. The Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts documentation states This field is for professional relationships with other notable musicians or bands that are significant to this artist's career. It gives examples of where this criteria could be fulfilled. One of the examples is Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions. Why are you still arguing against the consensus when the criteria is clear? -- dylx 20:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was a serious question. One that I had asked many times before and the editor elected not to even respond to. BURDEN has only explained the count, not the significance to the subject's career.

I have argued against consensus, but have not reverted the consensus, but it's still lacking the proof that I have requested. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it isn't lacking proof. The amount of collaborations is what makes the associations significant to the subject's career. I just broke that down and explained it. --Osh33m (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, a number of collaborations does not make it significant. I have edxplained that multiple times above. Again, this group has come to conesnsus that count is all that matters and I'm find with that, but I think you're wrong to come to that conclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You are the one who is wrong here, and it is on you to prove otherwise from the consensus. Your explanations do not make sense since what you're explaining does not match what the wikipedia guidelines say, which is a) the AA section is for relationships significant to the subject, and b) c) d) e) are examples which satisfy a). In this case, it is b) multiple times the acts have worked together. Need I remind you for the fifth time now, that this is the same logic used when the consensus was drawn for Grande belonging, where you were accused of stonewalling. It certainly seems like you are doing that again now. --Osh33m (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Followup, I don't know why you undid my revision; all I did was add indentation to your last input. And now that you undid it, your last input is lined up directly with the last thing that @Dylx: wrote. --Osh33m (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself whatever you need to do to sleep. Follow-up. I provided in the edit summary why I restored the correct indentation. You know those rules as well as you know the ones that you're telling me I'm wrong about here. WP:TPYES Use standard formatting and threading I was responding to you so I indented it that way, but if course, you'll provide some rationale on how I'm wrong. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You have been arguing with four other editors the past few days with the attitude of "I'm the one who is right, and they are all wrong" and you're saying I'm the one who needs to be telling myself things? The only other thing I can say about formatting is that I've always made sure to indent whenever I have an input in a talk section after another editor. If I'm responding to someone other than the last editor who posted, then I'll just ping them.--Osh33m (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, a number of collaborations does not make it significant. You are literally going against the documentation. Again, Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts clearly states This field can include, for example, any of the following: [...] Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions [...] Full stop. -- dylx 14:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Not done as the page is no longer protected and may be edited directly as appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal life section

I have thought about this each time I visited the article, does the Personal life section need to be broken down as specifically as it currently is? I think it was fine for the most part before but since there are so many subsections now, each one is really short. It seems unnecessary to me. I request keeping all of the information but removing each of the subsections. --Osh33m (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree; it's way too much, and from Hairstyle to Religion it reads a bit like a list, with each heading having sub-points. I think the sentences need to be integrated better. There also definitely doesn't need to be an entire subsection devoted to how the Weeknd "enjoys watching television and playing video games"... I also think the Residences section is unnecessarily specific at times. The Politics and Religion subsections can quite easily be combined but not sure how the rest should be dealt with. Benarnold98 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"Do It" section

As some of you may have noticed, I was recently in an edit war with another user over the following section: "In August 2009, Tesfaye uploaded the song "Do It" to YouTube under the pseudonym AbelOfficial.[29]" in "Early beginnings". What are your thoughts on this? TheWeekdayz (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for posting on the talk page. My feelings on this section aren't strong, but I do think the content is notable enough for inclusion, especially since its the earliest traced actual music that can be found from the Weeknd. The reason for my warning was because you kept deleting this content, which was added by another user and has been part of the article for a long time, without consulting the talk page, and you did so on 3 occasions within 24 hours after I re-added the content, which is the criteria for WP:3RR. Now that you have posted on the talk page hopefully a consensus can be formed and there will be no need for a report. If a majority of users believe the content is irrelevant then that's fine and the content should be removed; but if not then it should stay. I hope this makes sense. HvndsxmeSquidwvrd (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I vote in favor of keeping it. It is notable for being at an early stage of his upcoming as a musician, and it is informative for the "Early beginnings" subsection of the Career section. --Osh33m (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to change career section

In the past the Career section was divided up in this way:

2009–2012: Early beginnings
2012–2014: Trilogy and Kiss Land
2015: Beauty Behind the Madness
2016–2018: Starboy and My Dear Melancholy,
2019–present: After Hours

After having the career section changed for a while I think the article looks better this way, especially since the section splits information having to do with his latest album still. Are there any objections? --Osh33m (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheWeekdayz: If you have an issue with my edit then please bring it up on the talk page first before reverting it. I brought this up three days ago and because there were no objections, I went through with it. Do you have an argument to make for it? --Osh33m (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I do. It’s factually incorrect if you even read the sections in 2019-present. You’ll see information about new ear “The Dawn” that has nothing to do with After Hours. Tesfaye confirmed that After Hours is over. For the time being, I’m reverting it, as it’s just not true. TheWeekdayz (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't revert without a consensus. I don't understand what is "factually incorrect" about rearranging the career section. If the only issue you had was Abel bringing up the Dawn then all you had to do was add that to the title of the present subsection. I went ahead and did that for you. --Osh33m (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@TheWeekdayz: I'm going to report you for violating 3RR --Osh33m (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Osh33m I am in favour of this, and support this request. HvndsxmeSquidwvrd (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @HvndsxmeSquidwvrd:. Since there is no input from any other editors, the consensus to divide the Career section as stated above. I'll go ahead and make the edit now. --Osh33m (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing subjects

The following needs to be inputted on the article: Tesfaye’s early work with Drake, his homeless period, more information and images of his early year, etc. TheWeekdayz (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The 2009-2011 section discusses his early work with Drake. The early life section mentions how he left home in 2007. I don't see why more pictures of his early years are necessary. --Osh33m (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There is plenty of this information already in the article, and images, such as those formerly inputted by @TheWeekdayz, which were inputted without copyright license, are not needed. HvndsxmeSquidwvrd (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to The Weeknd has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Weeknd sold over 150 million certified units worldwide. 96.231.48.192 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source? --Osh33m (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

First main section + reason for name

Not a fan of the placement on this first section. Some very important information but if all things to choose to introduce/summarise the Weeknd - this is awful.

Secondly, he stated in a GQ article only published today (2nd August 2021) that the reason for his name is because the original House Of Balloons mixtape was first called “The Weekend”, but then decided to change the mixtapes name and call himself “The Weeknd” (removing the “e” for trademark purposes). Please amend this and move the whole section to another place. Thanks. Donnythedons (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

What he said in the GQ article doesn't invalidate what was said before, though. There is a source for it so you can feel free to add this to the main section. --Osh33m (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Drastic, uncalled for edits

Does anyone else here feel like we're changing things for the sake of it? Yeah, the page has some issues that I'm getting round to fixing but there are so many drastic edits being done to this page in such a short amount of time. If we could all work together by co-operating on the talk page then we can move things forwards and not backwards. Cheers. CitationIsNeeded (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Dawn

As Tesfaye's new era is rapidly approaching (see @theweeknd on Twitter), what do we think about changing the section dates back to how they were with focus on "The Dawn"? At this point we have so much information about the new chapter that it kind of feels wrong to keep it in the same section as After Hours. 79.70.249.157 (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

When I was editing the career section I kept the two together. Several of his sections do that i.e Trilogy/Kissland, Starboy/MDM; Beauty Madness has its own section since that was his commercial breakthrough. How do you propose to change it? --Osh33m (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think a new section for 'The Dawn' can be added once his new album comes out. He has started developing a new series for HBO and he is venturing into the cinematic world. He is also becoming a global superstar, more famous than ever. So this is as important for him as Beauty Behind the Madness was for him as it was his commercial breakthrough. Hence, I believe a new separate section for 'The Dawn' can be added. Gowthamsxo (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to The Weeknd has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add details of new song released by The Weeknd in collaboration with Swedish House Mafia, called Moth To A Flame. Gowthamsxo (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Gowthamsxo (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

"Dawn (The Weeknd album)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dawn (The Weeknd album) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 3#Dawn (The Weeknd album) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs § TopHit. The matter seeking consensus is the use of TopHit.ru as a source for song release dates. Thank you, Heartfox (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Genres in infobox

I've noticed on the infoboxes of numerous popular musical artists that they only list the broad music genres and then discuss the micro/sub genres their music touches in their "Artistry" section. Should we limit the subject's infobox to only the more broad genres he does and then list the sub-genres in his Artistry section?

--Sweethavxn (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Weeknd with band SNL 2020.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

in first, "WEEK END" is the name of a french female singer called Nahema publishing her samples ont the myspace site in 2004 ...week end group 's name is in memory of Madonna's hit "holiday ". infortunetly myspace site owners destroy all their datas which posted on this plateform between 2003 and 2015 the same last year... so any proof of this singer woman are visible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahema1 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You what mate? CitationIsNeeded ツ 02:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This article was better in May-July 2021

User:Sweethavxn, on behalf of everyone else who edits this article, respectfully do one.

Ta. CitationIsNeeded ツ 02:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Age

The page says that he is born in 1975 but goggle says that he is 32 (so 1990 or 1989). Can someone fact check? 184.148.23.9 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@184.148.23.9: It was just a vandal that changed it to 1975. It has been fixed. Bowling is life (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

4u.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

record sales

The Weeknd has over 195 million certified units sold now.

His Wikipedia page still only says he has 75 million, which is now an outdated claim.

Please adjust this. 2A00:23C8:6403:8401:3515:2FC9:79B0:9278 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

IPA transcription of name

Shouldn't it be /ˈeɪbəl/ rather than /ɑːbɛl/? I don't think anyone pronounces his name like the latter

Reda84100 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody really knows how his name is pronounced correctly (the American or original Amharic way) as there are no recorded evidence of his name being pronounced by himself. So to avoid confusion the whoe part should be deleted until we find a video where he pronounces his name. --SdHb (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2022

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to The Weeknd has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change his career activity from 2009-present to 2007-present 2A02:2F0E:5C08:3200:A88C:884D:3EA9:9FD8 (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Can't see any proof his career started before 2009. BelowTheSun (T•C) 18:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Rkellytrappedinthecloset2007.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

{ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.186.44.104 (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

When he moved to America

Kokomo 2607:FEA8:5980:1200:E91D:A49E:596B:8E58 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to The Weeknd has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Edit request to personal life! In an interview with Interview Magazine from April 2023, Abel revealed he has ADD (attention deficit disorder). ^[1] MarsDy (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Already done Actualcpscm (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Main photo

Why was the main photo changed? Can it be changed back? User1042 (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Klaipeda

It says he was born and raised in klaipeda. He obviously wasnt raised in lithuania 213.55.221.31 (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Photo

His photo is regularly switched from the show in 2017 and his portrait in 2021. While the photo from the show in 2017 is more realistic, the portrait from 2021 is way more recent and should be used. An o niem ja (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2022

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to The Weeknd has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

yesterday nominated for an oscar for best original song from Avatar 2 - Nothing is Lost (You Give Me Strength) 2A00:23C4:9482:F101:1DF0:5B88:B3FC:E4D8 (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Khrincan (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Nate Albert

found this interesting thing that in 2011, Nate Albert, an A&R executive at Republic Records, followed the Weeknd around the world for 18 months after he found out who he was

Source:Vulture- https://www.vulture.com/2015/08/the-weeknd-collaborators-chronicle-his-rise.html

Should this be added in the "Early beginnings" section? There are also other interesting things in the article about his early career Bhkkbey250 (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Does Scarborough not exist anymore? lol "He was brought up in what was then the city of Scarborough"

The article reads: He was brought up in what was then the city of Scarborough

But when you read the article on Scarborough, it literally says it's a current city.

C'mon guys, lol. Fix this. 68.71.12.38 (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks for bringing that up. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Request: Rename page from "The Weeknd" to "Abel Tesfaye"

He has reverted to his birth name on social media accounts and made it clear that that is how he wants to be known as such, rather than The Weeknd:

"I'm going through a cathartic path right now.. it's getting to a place and time where I'm getting ready to close The Weeknd chapter. As the Weeknd, I've said everything I can say." ([2]) Profavi1 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This has to be discussed through WP:RM, IMO. Keivan.f^Talk 19:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2023

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: Not moved as WP:SNOW. Clear consensus not to move based on WP:NAMECHANGE and WP:COMMONNAME. In any case, his next album will still be released under his stage name (beyond that is unclear), so maybe sometime in the future another rm could be proposed, but now is not the time. (non-admin closure) estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The Weeknd → Abel Tesfaye – He has reverted to his birth name on social media accounts and made it clear that that is how he wants to be known as such, rather than The Weeknd:

"I'm going through a cathartic path right now.. it's getting to a place and time where I'm getting ready to close The Weeknd chapter. As the Weeknd, I've said everything I can say." ([https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65601638 90.255.15.152 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Mos Def, Cat Stevens, etc. 162 etc. (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NAMECHANGES, vast majority of sources listed in the article still refer to him as The Weeknd. – Material Works 22:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Hard Oppose, absolutely insane that this has been suggested. He will always be known as The Weeknd, even if he starts releasing music as Abel, the average person will still say, "did you hear the new Weeknd album?". Very rarely can an artist shed their stage name, and seeing how big The Weeknd is as an artist, the average everyday person will not see him as Abel, and they would certainly not search him up on Wikipedia as such. Zvig47 (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose It will take time for him to be better known by his birth name assuming that ever happens which isn’t a given.--65.93.193.94 (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment It’s very unlikely that Abel Tesfaye will become his common name in the media. So for the purpose of Wikipedia, he’s stuck with this name around here. Trillfendi (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per commonname 90.255.15.152 (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Maybe in six months. We should need more usage than an Instagram post talking about going through a cathartic path to change a name. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per NAMECHANGES and per COMMONNAME - Whose to say in 5-10 years time he won't be all "iM gOiNg tHrOuGh a cAtHaRtIc pAtH" again?. Nah it can stay where it is. –Davey2010^Talk 22:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGE. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 01:34, 31 May 2023 (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.

^ https://www.interviewmagazine.com/music/the-weeknd-introduces-us-to-abel-tesfaye

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EivJ5hpQzms

[2] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqCgH83_phI

[3] ttps://www.fashionably-early.com/2016/01/26/rhythmicurban-radio-update-12616/

[4] ttps://ew.com/music/2018/08/04/travis-scott-astroworld-best-features/

[5] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yChnkXhauwM&ab_channel=TravisScottTravisScottOfficialArtistChannel

[6] ttps://ew.com/music/2018/08/04/travis-scott-astroworld-best-features/

[7] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfCuarZqJzM&ab_channel=TheWeekndTheWeekndOfficialArtistChannel

[8] ttps://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6671102/the-weeknd-the-madness-fall-tour-dates

[9] ttps://www.thefader.com/2016/01/15/madness-tour-the-weeknd-travis-scott-visonelie-photos

[10] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFWYTGtRmEE&ab_channel=LILUZIVERT

[11] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhr0zSJFS2c&ab_channel=TheWeeknd

[12] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F6SWhiFl8c&ab_channel=TheWeekndVEVO

[13] ttps://www.power106.com/2017/03/07/lil-uzi-vert-performed-xo-tour-llif3-for-the-first-time-while-on-tour-with-the-weeknd-watch/

[14] ttp://abcnewsradioonline.com/music-news/2016/11/11/lil-uzi-vert-set-to-go-on-starboy-tour-with-the-weeknd.html

[15] ttps://pitchfork.com/news/69369-the-weeknd-announces-tour/

[16] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrsFXgQk5UI&ab_channel=LILUZIVERT

[17] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRLyREkZles&ab_channel=NAVVEVO

[18] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_v2r8rdGM8&ab_channel=NAVVEVO

[19] ttps://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/nav-meet-the-toronto-rapper-producer-opening-the-weeknds-starboy-tour-253363/

[20] ttps://www.theweeknd.com/news/starboy-legend-fall-2017-world-tour-phase-two

[21] ttps://www.universalmusic.com/label/republic-records/

[22] ttps://www.umusic.ca/2017/10/24/weeknd-xo/

[23] ttps://www.interviewmagazine.com/music/the-weeknd-introduces-us-to-abel-tesfaye

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[1]