Per WP:NOR it states: On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. and social media is not a reliable source, especially when it makes claim of third-parties. Not to mention, the "act" breakdowns in the set list you introduced are also original research. Also, the continued violation of WP:CITEVAR is an ongoing problem on the page. Finally, per MOS:MUSICCAPS: words like "interlude," "video interlude" etc should not be capitalized. livelikemusic (TALK!) 05:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Livelikemusic, how the "act" breakdowns in the set list are original research? Billboard was the source for the thirteen acts. Thedayandthetime (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think your interpretion of MOS:MUSICCAPS is wrong in this case. It does not make sense since these interludes are new paragraphs. First letters should be capitalized. Thedayandthetime (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFSOURCE criteria is met for the social media reference I added regarding the 'S' prop since it does not make a claim of third-parties. Thedayandthetime (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to the Isabella Mebarak reference since she literally said she worked on a likeness analysis of Shakira for the on-screen visuals. It meets the criteria. Thedayandthetime (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does not state the act breakdown, this does not state the act breakdown the original source for the set list does not state the act breakdown and those are all of the Billboard sources. The source itself must state the information; otherwise, it is original research, which is grounds for removal from any page. The burden of proof is on the editor placing the information into an article to prove it in fact exists. This is an example of a source that breaks down a set list into acts (or sets).

WP:SELFSOURCE would work if the mention were about her and her only; however, because she is mentioning a third party (Shakira, which is the second bullet point: It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).), it is no longer a valid source. Plus, not to mention, the archived link does not even show the information you've implemented into the article. Also, re-adding the information while this discussion is ongoing is against WP:STONEWALL. Also, no need to tag me in your responses! I will continue to circle back to this discussion while it is ongoing. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does state the act breakdown: "In the fourth of the 13 acts into which the show is divided, the singer recreated and amplified the setting of the music video for “Te Felicito,” one..."

Are you referring to Shakira as the third party for WP:SELFSOURCE? Well, in that case I guess you can remove it if you consider that the sources are not "reliable" according to Wikipedia rules, but it's very clear that, in fact, they are. Here is a screenshot taken by a fan of one of the Instagram stories shared by artist Isabella Mebarak. Regarding ShowFab, it's also clear they worked on the production, since it's their official Instagram account (they made the same post on their other social media profiles, Facebook, Threads). I also checked on their website and they've been working with Shakira since her VMAs performance, so there's no questions about the authenticity. If you still think having it included in the article goes against Wikipedia rules, remove it.

You didn't respond regarding MOS:MUSICCAPS. Thedayandthetime (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was does, but it does not break anything else down outside of the mention of a fourth act, nor do any of them state "video interlude," etc. That's all original research you have entered into the article. As per the example I provided, unless broken down like that or in some kind of similar fashion, it's a WP:OR violation.

It does violate WP:SELFSOURCE because of the likeness of Shakira. It is what it's giving reference to; not to mention, the tweet does not prove where the image came from, not to mention, the tweet itself is unreliable, overall. Including Shakira within the posts/stories renders it inadmissible on Wikipedia, because she is the third-party person.

As for MOS:MUSICCAPS, it would still violate. They would technically follow Title case (via MOS:TITLECAPS) because, if included within other text, they wouldn't be capitalized. Either way, their inclusion, must like the act breakdowns, are WP:OR violations. livelikemusic (TALK!) 22:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Thedayandthetime regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Remsense. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Man, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 02:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.