Talk:Taylor Swift's 1989 wins Grammy's Record of the year; Bad Blood wins the Best Music Video

Freshness

I'm thinking of maybe letting this one through, if I can get its review completed in the next little bit; seems like the detail (which the writer has remarked upon, compared to the other that I've already ruled not-fresh) gives it just a slight edge. --Pi zero (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4196930 [Passed]

Revision 4196930 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This was easier to review than I'd anticipated; of course, that could be from practice. I'm allowing the broad characterization of Sheenan as a 'friend' of Swift's; I didn't see that said in the sources, but it seemed pretty obvious from the video I've watched. By this afternoon, I think, I'd have disallowed freshness on this one as well. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4196930 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This was easier to review than I'd anticipated; of course, that could be from practice. I'm allowing the broad characterization of Sheenan as a 'friend' of Swift's; I didn't see that said in the sources, but it seemed pretty obvious from the video I've watched. By this afternoon, I think, I'd have disallowed freshness on this one as well. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Ed Sheeran

If I recall correctly, that category was not added back then because he was mentioned just once and at the very bottom of the inverted pyramid to have the category. It is mentioned here.
•–• 04:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That may be true. And it is true he is only mentioned at the end of the article. But what it says in that small mention is he won Song of the Year which I think is worthy of putting it in his category. Music is not my expertise and I was looking for articles because there were only two in Ed Sheeran at the time, but I am sure this passes the test. Feel free to canvass. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Acagastya, SVTCobra: This has gotten surprisingly deep as I've waded into it, though I've maybe reached some terra firma on the far side. I do somewhat recall the discussion at the time of publication (though I didn't at first).

• Our categories exist to serve as sapience-based ("artisanal") search keys for looking in our archives: each category represents the result of sapient minds asking the question, for each article, if someone were searching in our archives for articles bearing on this topic, would they want this article to be listed? (I'm struggling not to launch into a hymn to the value of these search keys.)
• Ed Sheeran's win is participation in the news. If this article were our only mention of Ed Sheeran's win, clearly it would be wanted in Category:Ed Sheeran.
• It's not the only mention of Ed Sheeran's win; in fact, we have a whole other article just about Ed Sheeran's win. So when we imagine someone searching in our archives for articles bearing on Ed Sheeran, and we ask whether they would want this article to be listed, we are asking that question in a context where there's this whole other article focused on Ed Sheeran's win.
• We're therefore left with two questions:

• Should an article like this be listed based on its own content without considering what else has been published about Ed Sheeran's win?

The original discussion evidently decided "no"; on the other hand, I solicited an outside opinion here, off-line, from a non-Wikinewsie, who said "yes".

• If inclusion of this article does depend on its relation to the other article, is there any information about Ed Sheeran's win that is here but not there?

The other article mentions that his win beat out a song by Taylor Swift, and mentions the name of Swift's song, but does not mention the name of Swift's album that her song was on ("1989").

If all of this really hinges on whether this article contains information relevant to Ed Sheeran that isn't in the other article, one then has to ask whether someone who is researching Ed Sheeran in our archives wants to know the name of the album that contained the song by Taylor Swift that lost to Ed Sheeran's song. However, my solicited outside opinion on this suggests that the complexity of this question demonstrates why we should put this article in Category:Ed Sheeran and leave it to the researcher to decide whether the information here matters to them (because we cannot know their purpose, thus cannot know how just how they would judge the balance between the two articles, as we know only that they're approaching their purpose by querying about Ed Sheeran).

Taking all this into account, atm I think I'm favorable to keeping this in Category:Ed Sheeran (and, given the earlier discussion, a little surprised to find myself so). --Pi zero (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

But then, @Pi zero:, Taylor Swift and The Weeknd's articles mentioned Ed Sheeran's win in the related news section; which we had discussed back then. It just makes it odd to have these two articles mention Ed Sheeran's category.
•–• 19:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)