Talk:The Weeknd/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Picture Drama

I don't think Abel requested the picture to be up. I actually think he could have been the one to take it down. He's said multiple times he wants his appearance to remain somewhat mysterious. That's why when you search pictures of him, a large amount of them involve Abel covering his face or turning away. If he wanted a picture up he'd make it clear through Twitter or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.103.253 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

im sure he got something better to do than that. The Same IP Address keep removing it. Whatever, there a new one with copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Birthday

According to his Twitter account, he is 25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:TheWeeknd.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TheWeeknd.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Better to have a picture than No picture.

Echoes of Silence release date

Someone keeps adding the 24th of each passing month as the date that Abel's 3r'd tape will be released, even though the weeknd has not set a date. And October 24th is the original date for Drake's Take Care, which is why The Weeknd tweeted "Oct. 24" As of now there is no release date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.103.253 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Secondary school

There happen to be two school who claiming that the weeknd attended. Any evidence? please provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Song accolades

Starting a new section because I cant find my way around the preceding mess, to address this edit. Per Wikipedia:MUSICIAN#Scope: "All articles need not be identical, and there is obviously a wide variety of information which may be appropriate to some articles and not to others." You cant find anything in the Elvis Presley article's mentions of his songs (which deal strictly in the context of musical changes in his career, which is appropriate per WP:Musician) that is remotely parallel to the addition of a year-end best-songs list by Pitchfork Media (only ranked 57 and 15th?) for songs that lack notability (music/songs). Your addition does not fit anywhere with the layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, so the information should be deferred to the album article if there isnt enough information on the songs in general to warrant a separate article for them (MOS:ALBUM#Music). The Pitchfork rankings are currently included at House of Balloons, as should any and all other publications' best-song and best-album accolades. Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A biography article should summarize the person's life and career. A ranking from Pitchfork is not it. Simple as that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. It is WP:UNDUE to have the information in the article. If the song is notable, write an article on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an editorial decision as to what information to include as regards critical acclaim in an artist's career. If an artist has had little acclaim, then there might be reason to include the detail that a song was listed - even low down - on a website's end of year listing. In this case, I don't see that it is needed, given that the album the songs came from did receive sufficient enough acclaim from a variety of sources to over-ride the minor acclaim from one minor source of two individual songs. It is important to be selective. Including trivial information belittles the topic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• This topic is out of subject: it looks like a way to canvas the previous discussion that I had opened because I didn't mention any songs accolades, did I. The friends of Dan should have replied in the topic "Music:"House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" and how I presented it. Please, read the other topic and reply there, thanks. I started a discussion that was not about song accolades. Dan56 presented you the topic in a biaised way. I see that Dan56 neatly selected the friends he contacted. And they don't even warn us with "I was contacted by" before replying. This is not a way of wanting a consensus, Dan. Henceforward, I invite the other persons who took part in the topic "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" to contact past contributors of The weeknd. Spadebru (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• So I shouldnt have asked experienced, credible editors (who havent edited this article) to comment on what Valboo, not Spadebru, was previously arguing to me about his addition of this, which clearly shows "song accolades"? BTW, boldfaced sentences are not very appropriate in discussions, as they distract from other editors' comments. Dan56 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Music: "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" sampled on Siouxsie and the Banshees's "Happy House" and Beach house

"Happy House" is both heavily sampled and covered in parts (as The weeknd sings the chorus "this is the happy house, we're happy here in the happy house, is it fun"). "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" is a key track of his repertoire that has to be reported here: Pitchfork wrote a whole article about that sample and the chorus. The first famous song of an artist is important. The article about Elvis Presley wrote for instance here. During the next few days, the trio recorded a bluegrass number, Bill Monroe's "Blue Moon of Kentucky", again in a distinctive style and employing a jury-rigged echo effect that Sam Phillips dubbed "slapback". A single was pressed with "That's All Right" on the A side and "Blue Moon of Kentucky" on the reverse. For "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls", these words work : "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" had gained attention from the media in March. It was based on the sample of Siouxsie and the Banshees's single "Happy House" with Tesfaye singing the original chorus. Then, as his music is a mix of many genres, Tesfaye's eclectic music also blends other samples ranging from Beach House to Aaliyah's Rock the Boat. The article about Radiohead has got something about influences and songwriting. here. This also matters as his music is very distinctive. Spadebru (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Those words work if a reliable published source has said them. You cited this source to support the claim that it received media attention (WP:NOR). The "eclectic music" statement is not supported by the source cited. Both sources are on the topic of the mixtape House of Balloons, so please concentrate on using them there. Articles should stick to the sources most reliable on their topic, in this case the artist. Honestly, sampling others' songs is not that eclectic nor notable about artists these days, especially if he does he sporadically on a few mixtapes. An "artistry" section could be started in this article, like at Frank Ocean, but sources need to speak of The Weeknd, his music in general, not reviews of particular songs or mixtapes. Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Half of The Pitchfork's source talks about that sample, it's enough. It's like Elvis. Elvis's first hit was a version of Bill Monroe's "Blue Moon of Kentucky". That version is cited at Elvis Presley and then it's repeated in another article. Spadebru (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What does "enough" mean? It's a track review, of a song that isnt notable enough to have it's own article. Use it in its associated album/mixtape article. Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" (from "Happy house"), "High For this" & "Ennemy" are famous songs now. His samples are also his trademark. The Weeknd draws from rock material, Cocteau Twins, Beach House, Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Smiths as well as more standard R&B influence Aaliyah. Valboo (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

They didnt even chart. I'm not getting into a discussion of opinions on The Weeknd. Is there a source that supports what you're saying, rather than your own analysis? Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As this was widely reported by music journalists, I'm gonna add sources to the page. The following things, "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" based on "Happy house", the indie samples (Beach House), the R&B sample Aaliyah have been present for a long time: I added them in March 2012. I checked the history of the page and apparently, no one has ever erased this apart one contributor two weeks ago. As you're the only opponent to this, you have TO ADAPT. Reword if you find that a sentence doesn't stick enough to a source. Another point, a page about a singer has to mention songs: at least, songs that are listed in the Pitchfork's Top 100 Tracks of 2011 and 2012. Woovee (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Since this is an insignificant viewpoint, I'm going to remove it. Focus your efforts at the relevant articles, in this case being the associated album, which your source deals with specifically; BTW, the author of that article finds the sampling hardly evident to the overall aesthetic of the mixtape, so why would it be relevant here? I've never heard of this "adapt" rule at Wikipedia, nor the relevance of the history of the article, so I'm failing to see your point. You, and the previous people who've commented here, are showing their hand by stressing the importance of a few songs that sample others of you're liking. Dan56 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved your addition to House of Balloons. Dont know why you're using sources about House of Balloons and its songs here rather than adding that stuff there. Dan56 (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is against you. You don't follow what you preach as you included yourself many sources about mixtapes Valboo (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What does "many sources about mixtapes" have to do with my argument? I'm using what writers/journalists have written about The Weeknd, not one of his mixtapes; the section is "(His) Artistry" not the mixtape's (that's relevant at the mixtape's article, otherwise why have those mixtape articles to begin with?) Dan56 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no consensus, just disparate half-baked propositions to include something about the fact that this artist sampled a few songs on one of his mixtapes. Your addition is OR; the author is discussing the mixtape, not the totality of the artist's work/art. You're misusing this quote: "Yes, more than half of the nine songs featured samples, of everyone from Aaliyah to Beach House and Cocteau Twins": and writing it as "The Weeknd used..." instead of the correct attribution "House of Balloons used...": That's OR! You're mearly using this source to advance a position not supported by the source. Questioning my character wont help your argument. The reasonable compromise was adding that subject matter to the relevant article, House of Balloons, which I did. Dan56 (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, consensus is "determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Spadebru didnt address anything I said in response to his comment dated "20:09, 6 January 2013", and you didnt address my response to your opinion of "famous songs" and "trademark" (none of which is verifiable), dated "16:42, 9 January 2013". Just keeping track if you want to make this out to be a consensus instead of the proposal to add original research that it really is. Dan56 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Dan, you said on "18:43, 15 January" : "I'm using what writers/journalists have written about The Weeknd, not one of his mixtapes" but you based your work for artistry from a mixtape review. Your words "rumbling bass, forlorn echoes" is from a Torontostandard for a mixtape. (Mistry, Anupa. "Daily Disc: The Weeknd's 'Echoes Of Silence'". Torontostandard.com. Retrieved 30 December 2012). "They feature slow tempos" also come from a review: Cohen, Ian (November 13, 2012). "The Weeknd: Trilogy". Pitchfork Media. Spadebru (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The quality of the arguments stands. Dan, you don't seem to want a consensus because you wrote on "01:19, 12 January": "this is an insignificant viewpoint". This means that you absolutely do not want to see these names and this sample here. Spadebru (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasnt criticizing anyone's use of certain sources, but of the material in the sources, i.e. the text. Read Anupa Mistry's review, and you'll see that I used her first two paragraphs before she goes into the mixtape she is reviewing; they give a background on The Weeknd and discuss his music in general. And yes, you're addition is original research, b/c you're taking Paul Lewster's comments about the mixtape using those samples out of context (being his comments strictly on the mixtape) and attributing it to The Weeknd's artistry/style, which is not what he is talking about. That quote is a significant point about House of Balloons. This section is supposed to be a concise overview of his style and work, not one mixtape. Distribute that information there, not here. It's common sense that a review of his first mixtape isnt as useful as more recent articles since the completion of his trilogy of mixtapes, i.e. his career's work as of this point. Please find a source saying "The Weeknd uses samples", otherwise it's challengeable material if the source only says this one mixtape, which has its own article, used those samples you all are obsessing about. Again, why is there an article for House of Balloons if no one is going to add the relevant information there? Dan56 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context."

"Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research ... It is important that references be cited in context and on topic." Dan56 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And finally, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." Please bring up something about my points above, and not that I'm being outnumbered 2:1, b/c that's not what consensus is. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a new reliable source, "The top 100 tracks of 2011" by Pitchfork which includes "The Morning" and "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls"(from "Happy House"). This shows that these songs are notable. Valboo (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"The top 100 tracks of 2011" is one of numerous publications' year-end song rankings. That doesn show that they're notable. It was included at House of Balloons. Get over it. Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I found two other sources that discuss his music in general. Valboo (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good job, but dont synthesize them. Dan56 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please "don't revert without engaging in discussion" to you as well. Address my point. Why should this accolade from Pitchfork be repeated in this article when's its already included at House of Balloons, where it's actually relevant to begin with? Dan56 (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Dan, this list is about songs and not about a mixtape: it should have never been moved at House of Balloons. I included it first in this article: now, it is not present elsewhere anymore. I repeat this because it is essential: an article about a singer has to mention songs: at least, songs that are listed in this Pitchfork's Top 100 Tracks of 2011. I agree with Spadebru, there are accolades on a featured (good) article like Blur (band) and yes, featured articles like Radiohead are often excellent guidelines. Woovee (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Woovee, those songs are from the mixtape, and they should have been moved to House of Balloons. Being in a best-of 2011 list of 100 songs by Pitchfork does not signifiy any importance, you're just giving undue weight because you want to bludgeon readers with the fact that one song sampled another you liked (diff). If you like the song and its sample so much, write a separate article for the song or merge that information into the associated album article (MOS:ALBUM#Songs). Where and when you originally placed it is irrelevant. I came around, cleaned up the article, expanded it, and cited it appropriately, so treat me like I know something about editing. Cite an actual Wikipedia guideline like I have been doing here or dont be surprised when you're edit gets reverted. Dan56 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What does "Consensus is not for the only opponent in 9 months" mean? Dude, read WP:Consensus and stop making these dubious, fictitious edit summaries. Respond to my guideline-citing arguments or dont talk to me. Dan56 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You erased stuff written and found by valboo in Artistry. Let Valboo read your arguements and make changes if it is necessary. Woovee (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didnt "erase stuff", I revised and copy edited it so that it wouldnt be SYNTH/OR, as Valboo combined one source's text with another to write an original take on each of the sources' respective material, which is original research. Unless he is an admin at Wikipedia, I dont need his permission to make improvements to an article I've been improving this whole time. Again, contributions to articles should adhere to the guidelines and policies, not how the contributors feel their text should be modified. Dan56 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You should have checked the history. I've been improving this article for more than 9 months, adding stuff like this and that. In fact, I entirely wrote the first part of Trilogy (2012-present) but let's not digress anymore! Let's talk here and not elsewhere on personal pages. As I said before, an article about a singer has to mention his most famous songs. For some reasons, this doesn't make sense to you. You reverted that "The Morning" and "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" were listed in the top 100 tracks of 2011. You said "That doesn show that they're notable", this is very debatable. Pitchfork writes in their list that "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" with the "Happy House" sample is Tesfaye at his best. No one has ever reverted it in 10 months apart you, that's a fact. Ironically, the one and only song mentionned in this article at the moment is a cover of Dirty Diana but you do know that this version was never included in a list of the top 100 tracks of 2011. Woovee (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You're giving undue weight to the viewpoint of a columnist for Pitchfork Media's 2011 list of the year's top 100 tracks, for no reason other than to give prominence to a viewpoint that has little prominence elsewhere (WP:UNDUE). It's not debatable, it's one publication's list for 2011's best songs, one of numerous other lists that critics annually publish. The inclination seems to be to mention anything that refers to and gives prominence to the song's sample. It would make perfect sense to me if the song was of any importance, but it doesnt enough information to warrant its own article, so why dump this here when MOS:ALBUM recommends placing it at the associated album article? Again, you're citing a trend among featured articles that cover significantly more notable artists (Notability is determined by how much coverage they've received from reliable, secondary sources), not an actual guideline. We dont model each BLP/musician article after another, we distribute the information available covering them and their work appropriately. Any aesthetic opinions like "The Weeknd at his best" are subjective and have no place in a BLP article, which should provide an overview of an artist's work (WP:SUBJECTIVE). For some reason, you dont understand that guidelines are in place to refer to when editors have differences of opinion on what course of action is more encyclopedic. Repeating a song accolade and description that is already mentioned where it is most appropriate is not encyclopedic. Dan56 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That the article was unattended to by editors more familiar with these guidelines has no bearing on this either. Dan56 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dan gives guidelines that don't specifically bring answers to our subject. This sentence says it all: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Well, it has been published in tons of reliable sources that "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" prominently features a sample of Siouxsie and the Banshees's "Happy House". Spadebru (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Who's disputing that? Place information on a song in an album article (MOS:ALBUM#Songs). Dont misinterpret guidelines to get the answer you're looking for. Dan56 (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's rather you who misinterprets guidelines because this article is not about an album. Contributors at Elvis Presley mention details about songs (covers, production). Valboo (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, so dont add song information here, add it to the album article instead. This article is not about Elvis either. LOL. Dan56 (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• At the end of these 7 weeks of discussion, Dan56 is outnumbered 3/1 for this edit. He gave guidelines that didn't specifically bring answers to our subject. this article is not about an album: it's a BLP. Valboo (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I did, your subjectivity is just not letting you understand them. Consensus is not the result of a vote, it is "determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Information on songs from an album, that dont have enough info to warrant an article of their own, should be merged to a section in the album article. (MOS:ALBUM). You're making my point: This is not an album article, so dont add what belongs in an album article to a BLP article. Dan56 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

At the end of a consensus, there's always a poll. Your arguements are not relevant for this edit because they don't concern a BLP but albums.Valboo (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• At the end of these 7 weeks of discussion, neither Valboo nor Spadebru gave a valid argument in response to what I cited. My argument viewed the issue through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not an Elvis Presley article. You did not bring answers to my "subject", did not cite any guideline that might be relevant to this discussion. Nothing, just a comparison of an article on a historically-important musical figure to this article. Well done. BTW, where in Elvis Presley is there anything about Pitchfork Media's list of the best songs of....? Dan56 (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I did. I see that there's no objectivity in your arguements anymore. You keep on stating sentences from guidelines that are not relevant to The Weeknd as this article is a BLP, this article is not about an album. Contrary to what you pretend, biographies can talk about music, songs and production as it's shown at Elvis Presley. 17:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Elvis Presley is not a guideline, it's an article. It's not relevant to The Weeknd. I'm not relating the BLP article to MOS:ALBUM. MOS:ALBUM is relevant to the information you want to add. Your making a confusing argument: This edit is not a BLP article, it's an addition of material. You cant add random material without establishing notability for its inclusion when another WikiProject lays claim to where the information should be. It's content forking. You shouldnt repeat it here if it belongs in the album article, where it currently is. Three questions: Where in Elvis Presley is there any mention of either Pitchfork or a year-end best songs ranking? Also, why did you pick the song that was ranked 57 to elaborate on rather than the significantly higher #15? Maybe because you want to bludgeon readers with "which was based on Siouxsie and the Banshees's 'Happy House]]'"? Please explain. And why dont you cite a guideline for a change? Dan56 (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Did I ask to include song accolades? Did I say that this list had to be mentionned in the article? No. I only said that this song "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" (and its sample), was relevant to the article to me and to other users/contributors as it used to be included in the article (from March 2012 until last December). We can write sentences about covers or samples, especially if the sample is significant. Elvis mentions covers and authors of songs. "House of Balloons/Glass Table Girls" and its reception by Pitchfork proved that this song is a key song in its repertoire. The UNDUE WEIGHT reply doesn't stand to me. Spadebru (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:MUSICIAN#Scope: "All articles need not be identical, and there is obviously a wide variety of information which may be appropriate to some articles and not to others." So your ELVIS reply doesnt "stand to me" either. Dan56 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, "influences are definitely not punk" smacks of genre warring rationale, where you dont exhibit a neutral point of view and supercede what professional critiques say about aesthetic matters for your own opinion. This edit of yours is clear-cut synthesis/original research: Neither source you cited mention "indie rock and post-punk" samples, yet you merged that with the statement "His music incorporates samples that are unconventional in R&B production", whose source does not support the latter synthesized material either. Like I said, clear-cut. Dan56 (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If you restore your original synthesis (I keep linking b/c I feel you still havent read up on this guideline), I will revert it: period, no discussion. Dan56 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No ownership, please and one discusses. It's indeed useless to add several sources at the end of a sentence : wiki doesn't encourage this mess. However, this source (The Globe) doesn't label the right genre for "Happy House". Apparently, their journalist doesn't make a difference between the punk genre and the post-punk genre which are two very distinctive genres. I let Valboo find sources for this: if not, I would give references and sources. One has to be accurate when one gives informations.Woovee (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and dont accuse editors of page ownership, which you should brush up on. "One" (?) doesnt continuing discussing if one has proven himself right (?). As for your genre quibble, this kind of disagreement with a critic/journalist's article smacks of a genre warrior's behavior. Once again, you and the others in this oversized discussion have a common theme, which is not adhering to a neutral point of view in both opinions and interest in this genre. Let it go. It is not pertinent to this article. "One has to be accurate...", so you're assuming the writer is incorrect? Are you implying you know better than him? Just say it if that's how you feel instead of beating around the bush with generalities like "one has to be accurate". And please read WP:SUBJECTIVE, as genres are aesthetic opinions. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

... Not always. Wiki refers them with this genre from 1977. There's a source at postpunk by Jon Savage. This one is from "Sputnikmusic": The title track has easily become an anthem for 2011 in its indiefied interpretation of the original post-punk classic "Happy House" (1980). Pitchfork says that their first single "Hong Kong Garden" (1978) is post-punk in their review of "Echoes of silence". Happy house was out in 1980. The LA times source says that The Weeknd's influences are "soul, quiet-storm R&B, hip-hop, funk, indie rock and post-punk": you see that the la Times doesn't include punk. As his influences are mentionned in "early life", I suggest to not mention any genres in "artistry" anymore. Cocteau Twins is also a band that he sampled: we should include it in artistry, don't you think? Valboo (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with post-punk or "Happy House" (1980). I suggest not getting defensive when one of you're favorite sample sources (would it be Siouxsie?) is your point of view when you edit this article. Is the line about "including punk and alternative rock" mentioning anything about any specific song? Do you have any interest in the quality of an article about The Weeknd or any article that is in any tiny way related to "Happy House" or Siouxsie and the Banshees? And I still dont understand you're point about "influences" when the line you have a problem with is about what samples he has used in his music's production. Dan56 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You're denigrating someone's work where as you know that Valboo brought material (sources) in early life and artistry. You also imply that Valboo's point of view is not neutral, I suggest you to stop this kind of comment. Whatever Valboo was right & you didn't address anything to what he said. If you let "punk" appear in artistry, people are gonna check your source to see which sample is punk in Tesfaye's work. And they'll see that The globe qualifies Siouxsie and the Banshees as "punk pioneers". I've already told you that this is completely wrong. This is the ultimate proof: the specialist of Postpunk Simon Reynolds writes in his book "Rip it up and start again: postpunk 1978-1984" (faber and faber): at page 426, "At the very beginning, Siouxsie & the Banshees were exemplary post-punk vanguardists" and then Reynolds talked about their first lp (1978). And at page 428, he qualified "Happy house" as "pretty". Have you already read a writer associate "pretty" with the genre of the Sex Pistols? Not me. I wonder why you want to stick to your guns so much for this as it is inaccurate. The suggestion of Valboo was moderate. When a source gives unsound information, we have to be careful. Another point, The Globe's article speculates over Michael Jackson and says he "always had a strong basis in the blues". I've never ever seen that in an article about Michael Jackson before. Jackson was inspired by soul but blues???. Really? I'm very doubtful with this kind of assertion. Michael Jackson doesn't write a single word about that blues influence as well. I suggest you should drop a message to Michael Jackson's contributors and see what they think about this "blues" influence. Michael Jackson also appears three times in the article, it's excessive. Woovee (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I did address it, you just didnt read it carefully. Your source doesnt say they werent punk, it says they were post-punk (That article is categorized under "punk rock", as is Siouxsie and the Banshees). The Rolling Stone Album Guide says that the band your obsessing about here "forged a unique, introspective strain of punk rock". Let me reiterate to both of you: stop letting your own opinions spill into your edits at Wikipedia, because you're just wasting my time and firing duds at professional critiques that directly deal with the artist in question. I suggest you stop these kind of comments: "Jackson was inspired by soul", saying it like it's fact and not just your opinion; Cornel West: "Jackson is the product of the Afro-American spiritual-blues impulse". And seriously, it's hard to take either of you as having unbiased motives for editing this article when you're busy giving such effort and undue weight to any mention of "post-punk", "Siouxsie", "House of Balloons", etc. instead of The Weeknd's biography. "Early life" could use some work? Dan56 (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this information on Michael Jackson, that's very interesting, you should add it to Wikipedia. But that was the only good thing in your reply as now, you're also attacking me, sending me personal attacks about my work simply because you're outnumbered by three people and you want to discredit all of them. "Avoid personal attacks", It's written at the top of each talk: "assume good faith". You don't, because I've done more work on this article than you, 93 edits and 0 revert. I stopped adding other things to this page last December because now, you spend your time constantly reverting every new contribution. You started your explanation with a confusion between punk and post-punk. And concerning your Rolling Stone 's source, you cited unrelevant stuff again as it dates from 1978 and only concerns their debut album. Here, we're talking about a sample of their 1980 single, not a sample from their early 1978 songs. They had evolved in 1980, like later the Clash with "Rock the Casbah". Had you put a link somewhere on wiki claiming that "Love Will Tear Us Apart" was punk, I would tell you you're wrong; and yet like the Banshees, Joy Division used to be punk in 76-77. Anyway since 1978, music historians have evolved & New-wave for instance is not cited for post punk bands anymore. Simon Reynolds who is now considered as the highest authority for postpunk doesn't mention once the word punk about Siouxsie and the Banshees and by no means their single "Happy House" (1980). Ask Wesley Dodds who also knows quite a lot about post-punk. [http://www.amazon.com/Babylons-Burning-From-Punk-Grunge/dp/1841958794/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1361295371&sr=8-2&keywords=clinton+heylin+punk In this book], music historian Clinton Heylin said that the Banshees became a postpunk band in late 1977. [http://www.amazon.com/1001-Songs-Must-Hear-Before/dp/0789320894/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361296068&sr=1-1&keywords=10001+song+before+you+die this other book] supervised by a RollingStone journalist Robert Dimery also said that they debuted as punk but when their first single came out, they had transformed in a postpunk band. Nowhere on websites like Rollingstone, Pitchfork, NME, you'll find recent articles on The Weeknd supporting the idea that there's a punk sample in his work. Consequently, this Globe source qualifies some of The Weeknd's samples with a innacurate genre. But you refuse to admit it. You carry on being deaf, refusing a compromise where as the LA.Times (present in the article) contradicts your source. The Latimes is pretty clear about The Weeknd's influences: they didn't include the punk genre, did they?. Accusing me of being biaised is low and unfounded, my only concern is to make this article reliable. Woovee (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Update, The Rollingstone website has got an archive of a complete review, written in 1979 by Kurt Loder ( it's not a snippet like your link]. It says it all: "On their spare but striking debut album, England's Siouxsie and the Banshees deftly meld the edgy, death-rattle guitar and walloping drums of the best post-punk bands". Is a compromise possible now? Woovee (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

pfft, "snippet like your link"? Seriously, dude? Retrospective books are more scholarly sources than old magazine reviews. Dan56 (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a discussion on that band; BTW, here's a source more convincing than yours (b/c it actually mentions the song you're referring to is sampled) by BBC World Service that suggests otherwise. This notwithstanding, you're barking up the wrong tree here. You're trying to discredit J. D. Considine because of his opinion on the band you keep mentioning; Considine says that the sample sources he draws from are from alt-rock and punk, followed by examples of each. Whether you disagree with his opinion on one of the examples isnt relevant to his general statement: his samples include those from alt-rock and punk ([1]). This article excludes the style Considine thinks that band is because it is an insignificant detail. The important information from this profile on The Weeknd is included. You cant discredit a profile on The Weeknd because of trivial details not relevant to The Weeknd. Bring this up at Siouxsie and the Banshees and its talk page, or Happy House, where I might easily cite this in place of the unsourced "post-punk" if I wanted to. But I dont, because I'm not interested in them, I'm interested in this article. Dan56 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Had you say that it's not of our business if this globe's journalist makes a mistake with a genre, I would understand. You know, you could find sources saying that "Public Image (song)" is punk where as it's not. Retrospective books of Simon Reynolds and Clinton Heylin are surely more scholarly sources than sources (snippets) with no author of google book. The best way to deal with this genre thing which is not unsignificant as I don't think that The Weeknd would accept this punk tag, is to add a nuance like "Though...". Therefore, I added the Sputnikmusic source from another journalist who qualified this sample as post-punk. Woovee (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, BBC's more credible, and I doubt the Weeknd cares about what's written about him. So J. D. Considine (I can highlight authors, too!) is just this "globe's journalist" when you dont agree with him, but those you do favor deserve to be addressed by their full names? Do you even know what a "snippet" is, because you're making it sound like something petty when in fact the amount that GoogleBooks shows is due to how much permission they've received from the copyright owner/publisher ([2]), not the level of their credentials. BTW, I dont see how "this globe's journalist" (is English a 2nd language for you?) is making a mistake. Punk rock shows post-punk to be a derivative of the former, a subgenre to the primary genre being punk. Considine shouldnt be disqualified because you want to quibble over semantics and split hairs. Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• You seem to not understand that what you're doing is original research: WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". This edit misused the author's statement about the title track on House of Balloons here. And am I missing something, but are the title track and any of the songs you like mentioned here? You're clearly not showing a neutral point of view by attacking the credibility of the sources rather than addressing Wikipedia's policy on original research. Your "nuance" is original research, because you're confusing readers and leading them on by making it seem SPutnikmusic's critic is commenting on an overview of The Weeknd's sampling when in fact he only said "House of Balloons" has an "indiefied interpretation of the original post-punk classic 'Happy House'.", which doesnt translate to what you added. It's clearly original research and it's clearly not constructive. Your edit summary said "When there are several sources that say opposite things, it's better to mention it", but that's not the case: a. because several sources do not say "Happy House is a post-punk song" (only one by my count, Sputnikmusic's critic), and b. no source says "The Weeknd's music incorporates samples that are unconventional in R&B production, including post-punk and alternative rock" (hint: Find a source for this previous statement, and then it's not original research) Dan56 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Kiss Land?

Is someone going to update the page to include his upcoming album Kiss Land? He's verified it on twitter and instagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.102.89 (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's noted in the article's body. What more do you want? Dan56 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if it was actually placed in the discography with a TBA label it would be a lot more recognized.

That would be of no help to readers to list something that is tentative (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies#TBA). Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Issue with bias concerning his relationship with Rose

I don't take issue with mentioning the Rose controversy in "2010–11: Beginnings and mixtapes" however reading through the segment it seems that there is too much detail concerning this issue. The issue isn't entirely relevant to The Weeknd's "Beginnings and mixtapes" and should be mentioned but the way it is returned to seems to be biased toward Jeremy Rose.

The most notable mention was:

"Tesfaye released the nine-track mixtape House of Balloons for free through his website.[19] It featured production by Illangelo and Doc McKinney, although it did not credit Rose for his tracks.[14] "

The source used to defend Rose's contribution is the same one throughout the article and I'm disputing the excessive inclusion of the issue in defence of bias against The Weeknd's artistic integrity.

Drapeshow (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC) drapeshow

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable third-party sources independent of the article's subject. This piece of the article has been covered significantly enough (WP:NOTABILITY) to be included here. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The only third-party article discussing this is the Vice article, where all the information was taken from an interview with Jeremy Rose. From my understanding of a 'reliable third-party source', there needs to be no bias from the author. Despite Vice being a reliable third-party source, the source mentioned only includes an interview with Jeremy Rose. Jeremy Rose is certainly biased in this matter, so I disagree that this source could be considered 'reliable' and 'unbiased'. If Vice were to do an article that wasn't purely composed of an interview, this would be another matter.

Drapeshow (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Vice interview is the topic that's been covered by other sources ([3]). Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Weeknd is ONE PERSON

The Weeknd is one person, not a band. Please stop refering him as the "vocalist" of the weeknd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason why people are still somewhat confused (at times) is because the weeknd used to be the weekend when he was in a singer producer team with zodiac, after he dropped zodiac from the team he became the weeknd, but people still think it's a group because of that, also because he's had a history of doing duos, like nerdz and bulliez and The Noise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.211.93 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The single Enemy should be included in his discography.

The Weeknd released this new track on October 25, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.246.158 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and also collaborations should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.211.93 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Signing

Warner Brother close to signing the weeknd. Also interest from Bad Boy was disclosed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Also the article says that he owns XO which is totally untrue, that is the vanity label that Drake owns which The Weeknd is a part of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.41.58 (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that the bad boy thing got mentioned because even though he signed with universal republic, there is a question over why Puff got a plaque, what did he do to get the plaque? most people just assume he's his new manager, but is this true or is there more to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.211.93 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability

I noticed that a previous article on The Weeknd was recently speedy deleted (A7). I went ahead and started a new article with the addition of several sources so that it would meet (at least) criteria #1 of WP:MUSIC. Let me know if there are any concerns.  Gongshow ^Talk 08:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I know this isn't the right place but I have no idea how to make a new topic. I'm wondering why the XO isn't really discussed, we all know that his name "The Weeknd" goes hand in hand with XO, and from the start people kept arguing about what it meant, hugs and kisses? Til We Overdose? ecstasy and oxycodone?... I think that all aspects of The Weeknd and his music should be discussed, we can't shy away from anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.211.93 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopian or Eritrean heritage

There appears to be disagreement (based on some chronic edit warring) about whether he is of Ethiopian or Eritrean heritage. This article in The Globe and Mail refers to him as "Ethiopian-Canadian". Does anyone have other sources about this? It might be best just to refer to him as Canadian. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Other than the Globe and Mail link above, I can't find any reliable sources that address his heritage, so I tend to agree that it would perhaps be better to refer to him as Canadian for now until more is written about it.  Gongshow ^Talk 17:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

He is in fact born in Canada, but his parents are immigrants from Ethiopia. So, hes background is Ethiopian but, he is a Canadian Citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail article supports what you are saying, but do you have another source for this? Some editors seem to have been insisting that he is of Eritrean heritage. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian is also referring to him as "Ethiopian-Canadian" [4]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep it "Canadian", We don't refer Drake as "African-Jewish-Canadian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

IS THE WEEKND ERITREAN OR ETHIOPIAN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.218.13 (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yet I haven't been able to find anything else that identifies him as Eritrean. In addition to The Globe and Mail and The Guardian, the National Post [5] and MTV [6] also say his family is from Ethiopia. Any ideas as to why there is uncertainty about this? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

He is full ethiopian , you can see it on his music video : the knowing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.214.76 (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Article rating

After a few little copy-edits, I've re-rated the article as B-class; the article has good coverage of all the major topics, is well-sourced, and has good supporting materials (for which reason I've also removed the 'needs-photo' tag from the WikiProject Biography banner). Thank you to all the editors on the for some good work, and keep it up! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I've added a lead tag to the article as it does not properly summarize the body of the article per WP:LEAD. For example if gives undue detail and emphasis to minor events rather than summarizing as the guideline indicates. For example, side comments like "though his identity was initially unknown" are not appropriate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the 'initially unknown' wording to simply 'anonymous', and tidied up the lead to ensure it summaries his major releases and critical reception. Thank you for your tagging; I hope my edit is satisfactory. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

Dear StaticVapor,

I did not mean to undo your work by changing the introduction of The Weeknd's page. I meant to consolidate what is a long introduction detailing relatively insignificant events. If you look at a comparable page such as James Blake, or even Lorde you will find a much shorter introduction even though they have accomplished far more than The Weeknd thus far in his career.

I did not delete the "Michael Jackson" comparison quote, I created a new Criticism section of the article for it. But, it's a little ridiculous that such a quote would stamped at the top of the article considering only the person who said it and hard-core Weeknd fan's would agree. A more honest assessment of his talent would be preferred in that spot.

Also, why is Or Nah not even mentioned? It's the first song that he is on to gain serious radio play.

I looked at your user page and you do good work, so I highly value your opinion on this topic. Theonlybman (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, those article's leads are too short, it is not this one that is too long. As for "Or Nah" it is not really proper for the lead of the article, he was on the remix and he has songs that have received just as much, if not more radio play and chart success. On top of that it is not mentioned in the article and the lead summarizes the article.

RfC: Is this material acceptable per WP:OR?

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.

---

Is this recent revision by DA1 acceptable per WP:OR? Dan56 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Oppose - As the one who opened this RfC, and per my comments below. Dan56 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• WP:Synthesis—if a source points out how many sales of this album were required, then that’s fine as long as we cite that source, but otherwise, no. Also, WP:NOTED: It should not be noted that something should be noted.
• Acceptable. Simple arithmetic is not OR. Would it help to make the note "The RIAA requires sales of a million discs for double platinum, and counts each disc of a multi-volume set over 100 minutes separately, so a third of a million sets were required."? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  It does sound like some other grievance is also present here; I say nothing about whether this is useful to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pmanderson:, one million is not double platinum, and please read the last comment I posted below regarding what the RIAA requires. It would demonstrate this isn't a simpe matter of arithmetic. Dan56 (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Consensus is determined not by vote but by strength of argument so it is incorrect and misleading to call this section "votes". Also, the RfC question is unclear. It could be improved by including the sentence under discussion, which is It should be noted, with regards to multi-disc albums over 100 minutes, the RIAA considers each individual disc to its shipment count, so Trilogy needed at least 1/3 of a million sales to receive its Platinum certification. Ca2james (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is very much synthesis. The given source [7] says nothing about the The Weeknd's album. I would advise to edit the statement out. Those who require clarification on the issue can click through to the RIAA Certification article. --SubSeven (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

This recent revision constitutes synthesis --> editors cannot combine material from multiple sources to suggest a conclusion in an article that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. DA1 used one source, "RIAA", which verifies Trilogy was certified platinum by the RIAA, and another, "RIAA2", which verifies the RIAA's rules for certifying multi-disc albums over 100 minutes, to reach the conclusion that "...Trilogy needed at least 1/3 of a million sales to receive its Platinum certification." This conclusion is an original idea not expressed by any published source, and Wikipedia does not publish original thought: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." WP:STICKTOSOURCE makes this point very clear, not to go beyond what is in the source and only to research the most reliable sources on the topic, which begs the question--what relevance does an elaboration on the RIAA's rules and certification of this album have in a BLP? This guideline is in place not just to prevent potentially misleading conclusions from arising, but also as a threshold for notability. If, to use DA1's wording in their revision, "it should be noted", a third-party source would have noted it and we would be able to cite them rather than combining two sources, one of which ("RIAA2" in DA1's revision) makes no mention of Trilogy or The Weeknd. Furthermore, neither of the sources are directly related to this article. Dan56 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My aim was not to piece together information from several cites into a single assertion. Rather, the disputing user brought up separate counters each time my edit was reverted. Hence, I needed to added a different edit/cite each time I attempt to restore my original statement (to address the differing counters each time). Even so if the RIAA has a basis for its certification as fact, then any assertion derived from it isn't necessarily O.R. The matter of fact is, the RIAA counts each disc as an individual "unit" towards its certification criteria. Meaning 3 discs would require 1/3 of a million sales/shipment/whichever (this depends on the RIAA who uses different/inconsistent factors for counting units whether it be sales/presales/wholesale; as mentioned in my second citation) to certify as Platinum. DA1 (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand fully what original research is. It is in fact deriving something yourself, something previously unpublished, which an encyclopedia is not supposed to do: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information ... Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." (WP:OR#Verifiability) There's no source that reached the conclusion you did. Also, you would need to synthesize another source verifying Trilogy is a multi-disc album over 100 minutes to reach your conclusion, not just "knowing" that it is--it is the job of third-party sources to know what they know on a topic and publish it; Wikipedia just sorts out what they publish. There's no reason this explanation of the RIAA criteria belongs in this article, especially when there is already an article on RIAA certification (a link to which is found in the content you revised) which elaborates on the certification criteria in a section discussing "multi-disc" records. Another thing to note is that the RIAA criteria page you cited does not use the word "shipment" but "sales". Dan56 (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of what OR is. But your claim that simply "knowing" that Trilogy is over 100 minutes long isn't satisfactory but that I need a separate source to state that as well, indicate that you're nitpicking simply to ensure I cannot edit my statement to the article I had initially made. The time stamps for the tracks are clearly posted in the article for the album, I don't find it necessary to dig up a separate source stating that fact as well. In any case, I await what other users may have to say. DA1 (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That's only one of my "claims", most of which you haven't addressed directly, choosing to focus on an aside I had made about the album-length in my previous comment because you cannot address the rest. The only "claims" you need to address here are, a) what source reached the same conclusion you have, that Trilogy must have shipped at least 333,000 copies, and b) what makes this information notable to be included in this article. Btw, one-third of one million is 333,333 and 1/3, not 333,000, which is what you wrote and why Wikipedia is not a publisher of an editor's own research. Dan56 (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already addressed your claim in my first post. That being, the RIAA considers each individual disc as one unit to its total count for certification. I don't need to repeat myself, when we're already at the stage when the issue is to determine am I correct in my assertion to make a deduction/conclusion or it does it count as OR. As for 1/3 of a million being 333,333, I wrote "over 333,000", but there is room for more specificity, yes (333,333 is more correct). DA1 (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Specificity"? "More correct"? Have you bothered reading WP:STICKTOSOURCE at all? If you believe the issue is to determine whether you're conclusion is correct or not, then you do not understand what is meant by original research--if no third-party source has researched what you have and concluded Trilogy shipped over 333,000, then it is original research. The burden is not on you to argue the correctness or truthfulness of what you researched, but rather to find a source that explicitly says Trilogy sold whatever number you are claiming--verifiability, not truth. Dan56 (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I definitely own up to that, which is why further edits are needed to bring the statements closer to guidelines rather then dismissing them altogether. People reading the article may prematurely come to the conclusion that Trilogy sold a million album units (as is popularly associated with the Platinum rating), when specifically it sold a million disc units (i.e. 1/3 of a million albums). It's a vital piece of clarification which should receive some room in the article. DA1 (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What "further edits" do you mean? The addition of a source that explicitly states what you've concluded is the only edit that will make your revision appropriate. Another popular misconception is the one you just assumed, that platinum means it sold one million, when really the RIAA uses how many copies were shipped from manufacturers to stores rather than actual sales from stores, making it an award really for expected demand rather than sales: "[Nielsen SoundScan measures over-the-counter sales at music retail locations, while the RIAA's certification levels are based on unit shipments (minus returns) from manufacturers"]. This article isn't the place to rectify a misconception you're concerned with. This effort would be better directed at improving the RIAA certification article, where readers are redirected to from the pipe link for "platinum" in this article. Dan56 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2015 (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.

Capital 'The' violates WP:THECAPS

The guideline at WP:THECAPS says "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose..." I don't see any reason why the Weeknd should not follow the guideline. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree! Do we need consensus or should we just change it? Mhavril39 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any need to form a local consensus in order to follow the style guideline. In fact, there would have to be a significant majority against following the guideline for this artist for us to start using upper case "The". Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Strong disagree: this is unlike an example such as the Beatles in that "the" in the act name does not refer to a group, but "The Weeknd" is the full stage name of this singer. I may not have explained that in the best way, but it would be acceptable to say that John Lennon was "a Beatle", but you could not refer to "The Weeknd" as simply "Weeknd". Also note that the quote says "in general". That means there will occasionally be exceptions, and this is most certainly one of them. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

The Weeknd attended to West Hill Collegiate Institute, and Birchmount Collegiate Institute, but neither of them he graduated. 174.113.16.114 (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015

Hello. Can you please add in The Weeknd Wikipedia page that he went to West Hill Collegiate Institute, because in the west hill home page, it was specifically written his name on the notable alumni list of West Hill. Please and thank you. 2601:58B:100:1DE0:E877:6EB:92CE:AE54 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

- The article already clearly states "He attended West Hill Collegiate Institute but later dropped out" - Arjayay (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed that statement from the article. The cited source simply says he had to transfer high schools, and then dropped out, without mentioning either school by name. It's quite possible that one of the schools was West Hill, but a number of IPs have been inserting unsourced claims that various people attended West Hill so that that the alumni list in the high school page can be padded. Several of the claims have been found to be false on investigation, so I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt to any of the West Hill claims. Please provide a reliable source before restoring the claim that Weeknd attended West Hill. Meters (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Weeknd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130723110346/http://www.thisgoesin.com:80/2013/07/the-weeknds-kiss-land-arrives-on-august-27th-belong-to-the-world-snippet-news/ to http://www.thisgoesin.com/2013/07/the-weeknds-kiss-land-arrives-on-august-27th-belong-to-the-world-snippet-news/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2016

Associated Acts must be revised because he has worked with a much more diverse set of artists than what is currently displayed. List should include the following: Drake, Rick Ross, Juicy J, Future, Lana Del Rey,Tory Lanez, French Montana, Kanye West, Wiz Khalifa, Disclosure, Ed Sheeran, Labrinth, Ricky Hil, Jr.Hi . His work with these artists can be confirmed by noting his previous grammy award winning album as well as his past features.

Zekeria Nigatu (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your suggestions, Zekeria Nigatu. You will need to be more specific about how any of those artists meet the criteria noted at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts. For example, we do not list collaborations unless they are on multiple occasions. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: - please reactivate the request when you have added reliable sources by editing "answered=y" to "answered=no" on the first line of this thread. - Arjayay (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Weeknd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140409053023/http://www.polarismusicprize.ca/2011/ to http://www.polarismusicprize.ca/2011/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120316180853/http://www.wirelessfestival.co.uk:80/line%2Dup/ to http://www.wirelessfestival.co.uk/line-up/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Genre

Ok, a consensus needs to be found about the genre(s) of The Weeknd's music. In the past several days, I have seen the following put forth (and reverted by others): R&B, Alternative R&B, Contemporary R&B, and PBR&B. These are the most likely candidates, but arguments could also be made for hip-hop, pop, or a number of genres. We can use more than one genre (Michael Jackson, for example, has nine currently listed). I will not provide my own opinion, but I have had to review so many genre changes recently that it is time we do this. Leave your comments below. This is not a vote – if you comment, you must provide reasons or sources to support your opinion. Thanks. Amccann421 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

IMO, Alternative R&B (or "PBR&B") is written all over the article, so is a given. And Pop, present in his latest album. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Ethiopian geners

platinum confused

his album has been certified double platinum but he only sold 900,000 units. shouldnt it be 2 million units?? Love4Russia (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Love4Russia: RIAA (US certifications) includes streaming and equivalent track-sales. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Weeknd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6fMFARK1V to http://www.kanyewest.com/credits/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Weeknd videography

Hi! What about the list of music videos?--Mʀ Jᴇғғᴇʀsᴏɴ (⚡) 15:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 SNL Appearance

In the 2016 - Starboy section of the article, I think we should make a mention of the fact that he performed on Saturday Night Live on October 1, 2016, where he also premiered a brand new track off of his upcoming album. Thanks. --Sasha.sov (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2016

he cut off his braids 167.88.137.145 (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2016 (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. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Game of Thrones fan

Why are we restricting this under personal life? Rhonda Rousey has Dragon Ball Z in hers, for one over probably dozens of examples that can be made. If no one objects I'm adding that back. Osh33m (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I object to WP:TRIVIA in WP:BLPs. If other BLPs suffer such noise, that shouldn't stand as some sort of viral precedent ... richi (hello) 22:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What is your logic in leaving this information out? How does it help the article to leave out information about his personal life? Osh33m (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Learning music

Where did Abel learn his music? This is always one of the most interesting bits of information in the "Early Life" section for musicians, especially as so many seem to learn in their youth at church. Santamoly (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe someone could possibly add his nominations onto the page since it shoudld be listed under the "Awards and Nominations" portion. This only states his awards. Mylanieann (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Rose - end of Early Life, beginning of Career

Is undue weight and prominence being given to the claims of an individual in an article in Vice? Maybe can be expressed that Jeremy Rose claims that his early contribution was significant and was not credited?94.126.214.75 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2017

142.245.193.11 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2017 (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. Murph9000 (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume that he have forget what he wanted to ask. AlfaRocket (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The page is not semiprotected at this point anyway, but it is under pending changes. Any user can make an edit but most users' edits will be hidden pending review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"Party Monster" page

Party monster is a song in the Starboy album — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatuniversitygirl (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Monster_(Weeknd_Song) It needs to be edited to show that it's a single now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny RebelsSpirit (talk • contribs) 04:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Discography section

Should we include Trilogy (or maybe even each of its three mixtapes individually) in the discography section here? Whilst GENERALLY compilation releases and mixtapes shouldn't be listed here, the three releases it collects are major works by the artist, being his breakout material, and receiving as much (perhaps even more) critical acclaim and attention than his later work. Jimmio78 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jimmio78: No, only studio albums go there. Mixtapes, compilation albums, and EPs are covered on his discography page, even with the reasons you gave. Bowling is life (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: In GENERAL mixtapes and compilations shouldn't go there. But exceptions should be made when they are considered to be among the artist's major works. See Frank Ocean's discography section, and similar discussion at his talk page.

Descripton as Ethiopian

This is fairly simple. Are there reliable sources out there to confirm this. If the answer is a categorical yes then the description is accurate. It is also worth noting how the individual describes themselves. Take for example Steve Jobs, he was notoriously private and born in the USA, yet he is still accurately described as a Syrian-American. From the content of the article it is clear the individual indemnifies with their Ethiopian heritage. The description Ethiopian American is accurate and should be retained. 2.25.207.51 (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't revert to the "original version" because this didn't start on 28 May. It was added on 27 May by User:Mrdaniel580, who may or may not be you, and was subsequently reverted a day later. It has been reverted several times now. We're not saying you're necessarily wrong, but the first sentence of the lead has some strict norms. Per MOS:OPENPARA:

In most modern-day cases [relevant context] will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

That means it's on the editor adding this, in this case you, to show that it's relevant to the subject's notability. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Put the guns away, leave the knives in the draw, and dismount the high horse. Lets have a civilised discussion not a weird keyboard warrior match being advocated with lawyer response and lack of any answer to the point other that "You Haven't so no". This is a futile waste of time at the moment. This is just a steam roller attempt. Lets have an actual discussion. "Who may or may not be you" what on earth are is being implied here? This is just an attack the contributor response, and nothing to do with the issue at hand. Let's start again and discuss the issues rather than attempting to attack the other user. 2.25.207.51 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

its a mistake at the part when it says the weeknd and bella started dating on august

they got back together on may Rightmywrongs09 (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Vocal Range

Consider adding his vocal range. The Weeknd possesses a three octave,light lyric tenor vocal range. Ranging from a F2 all the way to a high G#5. Adding it to the Artistry section would be great. The source specifically doesn't say he's a light lyric, however he clearly falls into the definition of what it is based on Opera fach. Source:http://therangeplace.boards.net/thread/2513/weeknd Artistlover2000 (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to add it in if given permission to do so. Artistlover2000 (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The Weeknd partially a rapper

The Weeknd sometimes has a melodic rap style (Source: His song "Reminder") especially in features. The first sentence should be

"Abel Makkonen Tesfaye (born 16 February 1990), better known by his stage name The Weeknd, is a Canadian singer, songwriter, rapper, and record producer. Vipaah (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Image in artistry section is of Prince, not R. Kelly.

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.200.239.59 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2019

"on January 2019" = "in January 2019" 2605:E000:9149:8300:24E3:71B8:1306:273A (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

What's his correct birthday?

For a long time, everyone said it was 1986, NOW you're listing it as 1990? Wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9C02:6CD:C445:5A0D:D73D:4B18 (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• The Weeknd August 2017.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Why was the photo from 2018 removed? The one at the top of the page is currently from 2017 but there are at least two from 2018 here and here that I feel are acceptable. Is this something we need consensus on? --RTotzke (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Photo

Now here we can debate on the lead photo Blueshockerx02 (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueshockerx02 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Newer images are preferred but the red one is a little dark. I would go with this. Gargleafg (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

In the Section 2015 - After Hours i would add the following sentence. "Additionaly to the prior released singles [Blinding Lights, Heartless, After Hours] he debuted on the Saturday Night Live the heavily 80s influenced song "Scared to Love". Never the less the pre release of the Music Video, the CD version of the song was not released until the release of the full project on 20th March 2020."

Link to the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nm9RZqBaBM Vince7107 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done A source is required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2020

Tesfaye co-wrote an episode of American Dad. TDKO (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2020 (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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Associated acts that are not

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). Max Martin has been added, but he's only mentioned once in the article. While he may have worked on several singles with the subject, that work has not merited mention. The same goes for other "associated acts" in the infobox. Please improve the article rather than edit war to add incorrect information to the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As of 2020-05-30T19:42:37 (UTC) the following are listed in the infobox as associated acts

1. Max Martin
2. Belly
3. DaHeala
4. Doc McKinney
5. Drake
6. Illangelo
7. Nav
8. Daft Punk

Martin is named once and should probably not be listed first. Drake is mentioned most frequently, particularly in the career beginnings section where five of his eight mentions are listed. Daft Punk is mentioned four times. Three times in short succession in the Starboy and My Dear Melancholy section, and once in regard to the legal fallout from those. Belly, McKinney, Illangelo are listed twice. DaHeala are Nav not discussed at all. Unless the article clearly discusses a entry's repeated involvement with the subject, they should be removed as their interaction is neither "significant and notable to this artist's career". Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And with this edit, the one mention of Martin was removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No comment after several days. I will remove the content that does not meet the documented criteria on the weekend unless there is opposition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Storieblu: adding sources to the infobox is not helpful. The content should be detailed in the article itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

RIAA has him verified with over 120 million records in the US, can this be added? Makeitallawake (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Look up The Weeknd on RIAA and count up all plaques, adds up to 124 million Makeitallawake (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The artist's name

Makkonen is a Finnish surname, Makonnen is an Ethiopian given name. It's spelled correctly here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makonnen Naamattu (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2020 (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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Change all mentions of Makkonen to Makonnen. Reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makonnen not to be confused with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makkonen Naamattu (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles. Please provide an independent, reliable, external source for this claim. Just because a general spelling of a name holds does not mean it is correct for a particular person. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation of his real name

I've heared many versions of how his name is pronounced. Some say AY-bell, some say Ah-BELL and others say AH-bell. The correct English pronounciation is the first one, however due to his Ethiopian heritage it is possible that it's pronounced differently in Amharic. I couldn't findy any evidence where he himself pronounces his name. The same goes for his last name (TES-fay, Tes-FAY, Tes-FA-ye). --SdHb (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@SdHb:, I'm not sure what you're asking for here. If you want to add or change a pronunciation guide for the article then you need to provide an independent, reliable source for the way this person pronounces his name. If you can't find that evidence, it won't be changed because of the policy on biographies of living persons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

the Weekend

Per MOS:THEMUSIC, we should write the Weekend, not The Weekend the Weeknd, not The Weeknd. Not really sure what the debate is here...? Popcornfud (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, his professional name is "The Weeknd" (stylized that way), not "the Weeknd." And you also spelt his name wrong in this section: there is no third "e" in "Weeknd". Some1 (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You're obviously correct about the spelling (Weeknd not Weekend), that's just me being sloppy in this talk page discussion. Sorry about that.

But regarding the/The, MOS:THEMUSIC policy is pretty clear on how to treat definite articles in artist names and you haven't explained why the Weeknd should be an exception. We don't slavishly preserve stylization on Wikipedia, especially trivial ones like this. Popcornfud (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud is right, it should be "the Weeknd" within prose, just as we would write "the Beatles" within prose, to comply with MOS:THETITLE. In fact, the Rolling Stone article cited for the first sentence in the article also uses "the Weeknd". Richard3120 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The majority of sources use "The Weeknd". Billboard, covering the Rolling Stone article, even says "Abel Tesfaye, aka The Weeknd, told Rolling Stone..." [8]. And read my comment below regarding "the" within the body of the article. Some1 (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that I only changed his professional name back to "The Weeknd" and left all of the other "the Weeknd" changes you made in the body of the article as is, right?

And regarding your misleading edit summary, 1) This was a concert, not a tour. And 2) You incorrectly changed his concert name to "the Weeknd Experience" when the two sources (Ref #213 and 214) use "The Weeknd Experience"; Ref #214 used quotation marks. So I fixed your error and added quotations in case you'll try to argue and incorrectly lower-case "The" again. But with or without quotations, the "The" should be capitalized in his concert name, which it is now after I corrected your error.

Let's wait for others to chime in with their thoughts and opinions regarding this matter. Some1 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to take pains to point out that the Weeknd capitalizes The in his stage name - it's just not the kind of stylization worth reflecting or pointing out. We reached the same conclusion with The Edge several years ago. I also don't understand why you'd want to capitalize it in the lead sentence but not the rest of the article. That's just inconsistent and confusing. Popcornfud (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want consistency, we could revert back to the long standing status quo (capitalization in both the stage name and the body of the article) that has been that way for years now, before all of your recent changes, while this is being discussed now. Some1 (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:THEMUSIC is a guideline, which has had extensive discussions (check the talk page archives). If you feel you must challenge this, you should do so there, since it applies to more than this artist (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#MOSTHEMUSIC for solo artists was started last month). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking through the article's history and choosing random time points, "The Weeknd" as his stage name in the lead sentence has been that way since the article's creation:

• 2011
• 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• 2015
• 2016
• 2017
• 2018
• 2019
• 2020

Per your link Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#MOSTHEMUSIC for solo artists, it appears that MOS:THEMUSIC only applies to bands and there's no clear directions for solo artists. So if The Weeknd's stage name is being challenged now all of a sudden, then an RfC needs to be held to in order to change this long standing status quo.

I'm not sure if these editors have this article on their watchlist, but pinging a bunch of editors who recently edited The Weeknd-related articles to notify them of this discussion since it affects The Weeknd-related articles. @Walter Görlitz, Osh33m, Isento, DovahDuck, Woovee, CoughingCookieHeart, Maruchinn, Bowling is life, Paul Erik, Cornerstonepicker, Lk95, Storieblu, and TheAmazingPeanuts: Some1 (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that "this has been this way for years" is not a good argument against changing something. If it were, then it'd be very difficult to improve things. Popcornfud (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:NICKNAMETHE is pretty darn specific, saying lower case 'the' for a nickname, pseudonym or any alias. We should be using sentence case for the Weeknd. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

MOS:NICKNAMETHE for "nickname, pseudonym, or other alias" links to MOS:THECAPS, which lists exceptions and says names "should be quoted exactly according to common usage." The Weeknd is known as "The Weeknd", not "the Weeknd", which is why the lead sentence has been that way for years since its creation. Some1 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I am chiming in since I was pinged by @Some1:. I will admit that I am most used to seeing Abel's stage name spelled correctly with the capital T for The Weeknd and seeing the T as lower doesn't seem correct. I cannot say the same for other musical acts like The Beatles (or the Beatles). But my opinion is that consistency on wikipedia is important across all the articles. If standard practice is to keep the t lower case then I think we should go with that, and vice versa if the T is capital. However, if the case is that there isn't really consistency and the "the/The" is a case by case basis depending on the musical act, then I think we should keep the spelling as The Weeknd. --Osh33m (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw the back-and-forth evolve and was aware of the discussion related to individuals on the talk page of MOS:THEMUSIC. I see Some1 point here in that discussion. I have no strong feeling about whether the article should be capitalized or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Some1 is incorrect in their statement about MOS:THECAPS. That guidance is for titles of artistic works, for instance the album The Weeknd in Japan will always have a capital T. Nicknames and aliases are a different matter, and MOS:NICKNAMETHE stands as definitive. We must go around to all the articles and change to sentence case for the Weeknd. Somebody should write a bot for the job. A bunch of musicians and duos will need to be adjusted, for instance the Edge, the Neptunes, the Notorious B.I.G., the Jacka, the D.O.C., the Game, etc. We're looking at tens of thousands of edits. Binksternet (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's been a few days and it seems no one but Some1 opposes the lowercase. Am I OK to reinstate this? Popcornfud (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There are actually two editors who oppose this: me and User:Osh33m. I might have to take this to the BLP noticeboard or something similar, because The Weekend's stage name is spelt with a capital T, not a lowercase t. Since this is a BLP we're dealing with, we need to be careful and not give inaccurate information regarding a musician's stage name. Some1 (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misinterpreting Osh33m, but they said If standard practice is to keep the t lower case then I think we should go with that. Well, we have a policy for this so, yes, it is standard practice.

I think there is a pretty clear consensus here but if you still disagree please take whatever steps you think are necessary so we can wrap it up. Popcornfud (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Osh33m said: If standard practice is to keep the t lower case then I think we should go with that, and vice versa if the T is capital. However, if the case is that there isn't really consistency and the "the/The" is a case by case basis depending on the musical act, then I think we should keep the spelling as The Weeknd. I'll take this to the BLP noticeboard and will post a link here after I finish posting. And per WP:STATUSQUO: During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo. Some1 (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, perhaps they will come along and clarify further, but Osh33m said that if it's standard practice to lowercase then we should do lowercase, and if it's case-by-case then we shouldn't. As I have said, we have a policy for this, we do not decide this on a case-by-case basis. We can make exceptions via local consensus, of course... but there is no local consensus to make an exception here.

And you don't need to tell me about WP:STATUSQUO. I haven't been editing the page. Popcornfud (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Capitalization_of_"the"_in_a_stage_name. Permanent link: [9]. Some1 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• What do the majority of reliable sources use in their coverage?--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• In this case, since they seem to strongly prefer The Weeknd, our guidelines indicate we should follow those reliable sources in treating The like part of the name, rather than as a definite article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As Popcornfud succinctly summarized, We don't slavishly preserve stylization on Wikipedia. There are numerous policy pages linked in this discussion that all consistently call for lower case the. There are past discussions, also linked, reaffirming this. Please let it go. It is a small thing. We're very unlikely reach a different consensus this time. There is no reason to drag ourselves through this again. ~Kvng (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC - capitalization of The Weeknd's stage name

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Should the "The" in The Weeknd's stage name be capitalized or lowercase?

Some1 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevant discussions:

• Talk:The_Weeknd#the_Weekend
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Capitalization_of_"the"_in_a_stage_name

• Entirely wrong style. Faulty RfC. Whatever style is used will be used throughout the article. We are not going to split styles between the first section and subsequent sections. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I'll get it changed. Updated now: [10]. Some1 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Lowercase. MOS:THEMUSIC says we should lowercase "the" in band names. MOS:NICKNAMETHE says we should lowercase "the" in aliases. WP:MOSCAPS says we should uppercase "the" only when "virtually all reliable sources consistently" capitalise it, and they don't for the Weeknd. Popcornfud (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lowercase. The Wikipedia MOS is clear here that it should be lowercase. I personally think that the MOS should be changed so that it allows referring to him as The Weeknd, but the current guidelines are clear. Gbear605 (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Sentence case which is lower case in running prose. MOS:NICKNAMETHE is the guide. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lowercase. Props to Popcornfud for so succinctly capturing the breadth of the MoS guidance on this. I actually was not sure what the manual's suggested approach was until I followed up those links, but it any event it is certainly consistent with most other major style guidelines and the by far most common approach in English prose generally, with regard to the definite article in these circumstances. So really all indicators are pointing in one direction, I would argue. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Capitalized, for the following reasons:

1. Abel uses “The Weeknd” (with a capital T) as his stage name. "The" is part of his stage name; it is not an article. He is not known as "Weeknd." This is according to both primary and secondary sources. Primary (his official stage name): His official website ("GRAMMY® Award-winning diamond-certified Toronto R&B / Pop icon The Weeknd captures"), his record label his record label ("through an ambitious widescreen lens, The Weeknd quietly"), his YouTube channel (“Abel adopted the stage name, "The Weeknd," after"), his Facebook page (“The official Facebook Page for The Weeknd") Secondary (what reliable, independent, and secondary sources say): Billboard (“Abel Tesfaye, aka The Weeknd, told Rolling Stone”), The Grammys, Canada's Walk of Fame ("Born Abel Tesfaye, The Weeknd..."), CBC ("Toronto's Abel Tesfaye, better known as The Weeknd..."), Complex, Variety, Toronto ("Scarborough native The Weeknd continues...), NME, The Verge ("debauched pop prince The Weeknd (aka Abel Tesfaye)"), BBC [11] ("According to tastemakers, The Weeknd - otherwise known as 22-year-old Toronto-based singer Abel Tesfaye"), People ("...Gomez and The Weeknd (née Abel Tesfaye)"), Entertainment Tonight, ABC - taken from The Weeknd's reference list.
2. The Weeknd's article has his stage name as The Weeknd with a capital T since 2011 (article was created in 2011). This is the long-standing status quo. Random time periods throughout the years: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 all correctly capitalize his stage name as The Weeknd in the lead sentence. Hence the RfC if we want to change this almost decade-long status quo.
3. MOS:THEMUSIC includes guidance for bands, not solo artists, which caused this recent discussion on its talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music#MOSTHEMUSIC_for_solo_artists and no clear directions.
4. MOS:NICKNAMETHE links to MOS:THECAPS, which lists exceptions. The Open Championship is listed as an exception; I don't know if The Weeknd is an exception or not. Others have stated he's not. If not, then I believe WP:Ignore All Rules applies here to keep things accurate, since this is basically a trade-off between accuracy and following the MOS, IMHO.
5. There really is no consistency regarding "the"/"The" being used throughout different Wikipedia articles, so I'm assuming some are determined on a case-by-case basis, which should also happen for "The Weeknd". For example, someone mentioned on MOS:THEMUSIC's talk page about The Alchemist (musician)'s stage name being capitalized. The Bahamas is also capitalized.
6. Abel uses The Weeknd with a capital T as his stage name. If Wikipedia decides to start off The Weeknd’s article with “Abel Makkonen Tesfaye (born February 16, 1990), known professionally as the Weeknd” (with a lowercase t), not only is that giving readers inaccurate information regarding his stage name, but is basically telling Abel that he doesn’t know the casing of his own stage name. Some1 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

   Some1, this last point (6) can prehaps be addressed by rephrasing the lead to start with, "The Weeknd, the stage name for Abel Makkonen Tesfaye..." or somesuch. ~Kvng (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

   That's actually a decent idea and avoids giving readers inaccurate information regarding the casing of his stage name in the lead sentence. Some1 (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• If sources are evenly split, we should use lowercase per our guidelines. If a clear majority use the official capitalization, then that is what our title policy says we should follow.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lowercase – It's not like The Hague. It's not about whether official and primary sources cap it, but rather about whether independent sources consistently cap it; they don't (even if a majority, that's short of "consistently"). For the concert name, assuming it's a proper name or trademark, cap it: "The Weeknd Experience". Dicklyon (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Use lower-case the, per MOS:THECAPS, MOS:NICKNAMETHE, MOS:THEMUSIC, and MOS:TM, which exist for good reasons, including this exact kind of question, which is already long-settled.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lowercase. In Some1's lengthy argument, the only really key important is what independent, reliable sources do, not the singer himself. While some do use uppercase, it is far from the only style used. Among the sources that prefer the lowercase are The NY Times The Washington Post Esquire and Rolling Stone. -- Calidum 02:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lowercase All the linked MOSs point to "the". —Ojorojo (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lowercase is consistent with policy and previous discussions of this question. ~Kvng (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lowercase per MOS:NICKNAMETHE, Prefer capitalised but MOS:NICKNAMETHE trumps preference. –Davey2010^Talk 19:30, 26 August 2020 (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.

Clean up

Okay, so obviously judging by the votes/comments so far in the RfC above, there's a clear consensus to lower-case his stage name. The articles listed on Template:The Weeknd will need clean up with all of the "The" changed to "the" for consistency. Some1 (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The template itself needs some clean-up as "remix" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant the individual articles listed on the template (such as Wicked Games, Twenty Eight (song), The Zone (song), etc. etc.) will need "The" lowercased to "the" in the lead paragraph and in the body of the articles. Some1 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ew, were' really using "the Weeknd" as a disambiguator? Looks awkward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean, for example, Faith (the Weeknd song) as opposed to Faith (The Weeknd song)? There'd be no sense at all in capitalising it there. Though I'd personally vouch for just Faith (Weeknd song).

Of course, now we are touching on the ridiculously inconsistent way Wikipedia handles "the" in article titles generally. I wrote about this in an essay if anyone is hungry for more pontification about the/The. Popcornfud (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet has just informed me about this RFC about using "The" in article titles so I may have jumped the gun here. Didn't occur to me this would be a separate issue. Popcornfud (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Lyrics and controversies

The second verse of the song "Lost in the Fire", with the lines "You said you might be into girls, said you're going through a phase/Keeping your heart safe/Well, baby, you can bring a friend/She can ride on top your face/While I fuck you straight", caused controversy. The lines were called offensive and homophobic, and were criticized by some for fetishizing bisexuality and perpetuating the falsehood that a person can be "turned straight". The lyrics were also accused by some of alluding to corrective rape. The Weeknd has yet to directly respond to the criticism. Log Date 7 15 2 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Wasn’t a big enough controversy to warrant inclusion on this article. If the song has an article it could go there. Trillfendi (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

Add the following, proposedly as a section between "Personal life" and "Awards and nominations" (becoming "6" in "Contents"): — Preceding unsigned comment added by Log Date 7 15 2 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Not without a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I see, you wanted the section below. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Time for a new Image? REQUEST

We should probably update the image we have right now for The Weeknd. His whole 2019-now presence has been the red suit so I feel like that should be the picture that users see as it's the latest look for him.

Here are some links for images that we can use:

https://images.sk-static.com/images/media/img/col4/20191130-223218-182475.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c6/c7/9b/c6c79b1f5c7c5368ec4ca73a9afa9f71.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKfG3iDUEAAoxo-.jpg

https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/btExpNd_Vnd0YzRaixRHOs9dszg/309x0:2449x2140/fit-in/2048xorig/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2020/02/19/846/n/1922283/2fc6c75b5e4d8a486eeef4.57603435_/i/when-is-weeknd-dropping-his-new-album-after-hours.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefRam0n (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s not as simple as taking a picture from a website. It has to be licensed for free use. Most aren’t. Luckily an applicable one is. Trillfendi (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)