Talk:Number 1's (Mariah Carey DVD)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My points for changing things.

Her number-one singles since the release of the DVD include "Thank God I Found You" (2000) and "We Belong Together" (2005).

Mel butchered the meaning behind this phrase. It was supposed to indicate that these singles are not on the DVD because they went to #1 after the DVD was released. Here it just says that she's had two #1 singles since the DVD was released. Well, ok, kind of the same thing, but I edited the article to add more clarity.

In the article, #1 singles needs to be put in based on the Manual of Style which states

Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article. However, it is considered awkward for a numeral to be the first word of a sentence: either recast the sentence or spell the number out.

Finally, why in the world does Mel keep changing "Heartbreaker Remix" to the 15th track? I told him in my edit summary, but apparently he ignores other people and just does what he feels like. Like I said in the edit summmary, that video is NOT the 15th track. After the 14th track, the DVD resets. To access the "Heartbreaker Remix" you need to go to another screen, but in no way is that 15th track.

1. Er, they mean the same, but you're saying that I "butchered the meaning"? The version that I edited was clumsy and convoluted; I made it clearer.

   No, you made it less clear. Your statement just declares that she has just had two #1 singles since the DVD came out. It's not that big of a deal, but I'd like it to something that can indicate that those videos are not included because they came out after the DVD.

   It seems clear enough to me (unless readers are going to see that the songs reached number one after the album/DVD, but still expect the videos to be included), but how about:

   "Her number-one singles since the release of the DVD, whose videos are therefore also not included, are "Thank God I Found You" (2000) and "We Belong Together" (2005).

   I think that it's unnecessarily labouring the point, but in the spirit of compromise...

Well, didn't you get confused over the retirement of "Behind These Hazel Eyes"? I didn't see anyone could get confused by that. Anyway, how about this one..

"As the DVD was released in late 1999, the videos for "Thank God I Found You" (1999) and "We Belong Together" (2005)are not included here.

1. We avoid abbreviations where possible (except in tables), and we don't use "#" but "no" when an abbreviation for "number is needed. It's also vastly preferable to use English in text; every style manual says that numbers under ten should be written in full, and most (aside from print-media journalism with its space problems) says that humbers under 100 should be so written.

   We should avoid them when possible; this is not one of those times, since when we're dealing with popular music where chart stats are very important, especially in a DVD that is even called #1's! I'd agree with you if you just were talking about some non entertainment field where numbers are not important, but here they are. "Every" style manual may say that, but the Wikipedia manual says that we are allowed to use these numbers in numeral form.

   The title is illiterate, but that's no reason for us to be; we don't have to use greengrocer's apostrophes just because a pop-singer or her record label use them, nor do we have to go along with their choice of typography. And articles look better when they're in English, rather than being peppered with numerals like pseudo-maths.

   Articles usually look better in English, but not here. We're dealing with something in which numbers are very important. If this was an article about a baseball player, I'd want to see his stats written out as numbers, not words. If this was an article about math, I'd want to see things written out as numbers, not words. The same applies here. And just because you dont like this music, as youve mentioned before, does not mean that these are "psuedo-maths". Several people who edit these music articles have no problem with it, because they understand music, and we never had a problem until you came. Like if I didn't understand an entry about math, and edited it to spell out numbers because I thought it would be better English, all the math editors would probably cause a ruckus with me. In any case, the MoS says we can have stats as numbers, so I'd like to go for that.

   First, you've put your finger on the problem: for some time, it seems that articles on pop music have been written by fans for fans. Wikipedia isn't a fanzine, though; it's an encyclopædia, with a uniform style , policies, and guidelines — articles must look right to and be clear for anyone, not just those used to reading music journalism.

   Secondly, calling it pseudo-maths has nothing to do with my opinion of the music, but of the use of numerals. Leave numerals for maths, and use written-out numbers in English.

   Please try to comment using proper formatting; you keep interpolating comments so as to change the numbering of my original comments, making it look silly. It's really not hard; I've corrected it again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

   These articles were not written by fans for fans; if I wanted it to be like that, they'd be less subtle. How are these articles written for people in "music journalism"? They are not at all. They are written so that most people can understand them. Your formats makes things look like a hot mess that both people in "music journalism" and "normal people" can't read. Spelling out chart stats doe not help "normal" people. If that was the case, I should go to all entries that have numbers and ask them to spell it out.

   And who says numerals are restricted for only math? Is your next agenda to get rid of all stats for sports related entries then? Numbers should not be used in abundance when the article does not deal with math, but this entry (like entries about baseball, basketball, and other sports) deals with numbers extensively and they need to be in.

2. There are fifteen videos on the DVD; in so far as they need to be numbered, what exactly is wrong with numbering them all? Why do you think that the numbering needs to match the DVD cover?

   I'm not just changing it to make it exactly like the DVD cover, but its crazy to put a track as the 15th track, when its not the 15th track at all. If this was a CD, then I'd agree with you, because a bonus or hidden track can only be found on one layer, but a DVD can have multiple layers, and there is no way that track comes close to being the 15th video.

   There are fifteen videos on the DVD; fourteen others are listed — that makes this one the fifteenth. it might not be given the number fifteen on the cover, it might be "in a different place on the DVD" (whatever that means — can you point on the disc to where the different videos are?), or an a different layer (but so what?), but it's the fifteenth of fifteen videos. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

   It's not the 15th of 15th videos. The Remix video can be found only on a seperate screen through another window of the DVD. You cant access it in the normal fashion. If I wanted to, I could play it first, then it would be the 1st video and every other video would go down by one. Because it has no real order, the best way to label it to label it is as a bonus video. It may seem logical now because theres only one video, but in other DVDs, where the main listing comes with the basic programs, and more than one video or other features or scattered in different layers, it makes it a mess because there is no true hierachy, and so the best way to list them is as bonus videos.

OmegaWikipedia 12:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

1. You're still not getting it; there's no need for the list to ape the DVD; we're just ordering the videos on the disc. We could just as well have them in a plain buletted list, and it wouldn't matter. It matters on the DVD insert, because it's there to help you find the video on the disc, but this isn't a DVD insert, it's an encyclopædia article. Anyone who wants to find tracks on the disc will have the disc, and so have the disc insert.

   If there are twelve people standing in a queue for a bus, and one person waiting to one side, then there are thirteen people waiting for the bus. If we wanted to list them, we'd probably list the twelve people, and add the last one as number thireteen — because she is the thirteenth person, whether she's in the queue or not. If there are fifteen videos, and you've listed fourteen of them, then the one that's left is the fifteenth. That's real maths. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

   I get it very well, I dont think you get me, but I'm shocked by your blatant disrespect of this subject. If you put them in a bulleted list, it would matter! If you think the order does not matter, are you just going to change all tracklistings and arrange them in a random order? It doesnt have to be anarchy like youre suggesting. It doesnt matter if they have the disc or not, why are we putting up an incorrect tracklisting? And I disagree with your analogy. If were going to get into analogies now, yours is more of a linear analogy with only a y and an x axis. When we're thinking DVDs, because of the multi layer aspect of it, there can be more than 2 and maybe even more than 3 types of axis involved. And in those cases, it's harder to dechipher the true order without putting some type of cautionary note. Like I said, your analaogy would work for a CD, because it only has one layer, but this is not a CD. OmegaWikipedia 12:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

1. "Disrespect"? You seem to be getting a little over-wrought. We're disagreeing over a technical matter concerning the lay-out of a Wikipedia article. Try to keep a sense of proportion.
2. I didn't suggest that the order didn't matter; I suggested that the numbering didn't matter.
3. Neither we nor the person watching the DVD are concerned with the physical properties of a DVD (any more than the physical properties of my hard disk concern me; I'm interested in the ordering of my files, which often has little to do with their physical positions on the disk).
4. It's not a matter of "the true order"; if you wanted, you could watch the fifteenth video, and then the other fourteen. There are fifteen videos on the disk. What is so tragic about numbering the fifteenth "15"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)