Talk:Maneater (Nelly Furtado song)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
this should be moved, and a disambiguation page added, cf. Hall &oates maneater e.g.
- Not unless those pages exist. Do they? - Рэдхот 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't now but Im currently working on a project of U.S. number one hits, so I am moving this page accordingly and creating a disambig. -- eo 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Who wrote this?
There are vast similarities between this article and the article on Promiscouus. For instance, both have a "on Furtado's request" part about the video, and both have something about what she wanted to portay in the video.
Are these being written by Furtado's agency or something?
They both follow a particular structure and grammar, almost like a particular template was used.
Not that there is anything against the rules about her agency participating in Wikipedia, but its a question of whether or not eventually even the corporate world will come to the open-source/free-information movement (thereby completing the movements acension to mainstream).
PLEASE keep personal commentary out of an encyclopedia article. The phrase to the effect of ..."[Furtado] can't dance for her life..." is NOT appropriate.
[edit] The extra stuff
I have removed the following from the infobox, seeing as it is useless:
<!-- Say It Right is now the next single {{Extra chronology
| Artist = [[Nelly Furtado]]
| Type = North American singles
| Last single = "[[Promiscuous (song)|Promiscuous]]"<br>(2006)
| This single = "Maneater"<br>(2006)
| Next single = "[[No Hay Igual]]"<br>(2006)
}} --> Øřêōş 22:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] US Release?
Anybody know when the song is gonna be released in the US???
- The Canadian release date was yesterday; the U.S. release date should be fast-approaching. Very soon, I'd assume. 64.231.115.150 00:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What does this mean exactly?
"Furtado and Timbaland also channel the 1982 Hall & Oates number one hit (U.S.) of the same name without the use of sampling."
They're awfully clever, but could this be said a little less cryptically? I have no idea what the author is trying to explain. And I won't attempt to rewrite it without a source. Did Furtado or Timbaland make this claim? Rossrs 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've put a {{fact}} tag after it; hopefully someone who knows more about the relationship between the two can elaborate. Extraordinary Machine 16:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cover
Why was the cover changed, there ARE two different covers so why use just one when there are actually two? --218.160.64.66 15:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states that fair use media (such as single covers) should be used "as little as possible ... Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." Extraordinary Machine 22:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changing "extra" to "additional"?
I've assumed good faith with Velten (talk • contribs) with more effort than she deserves, but some of her recent edits [1] [2] [3] border on the completely ridiculous. Velten, note that the Celine Dion article is at Celine Dion for a reason - if you have a problem with this, you discuss it on the talk page or post a requested move, but what you don't do is change links matching the article's current title so that they instead match what you feel is the correct way to write her name (as well as piping them so they are hidden when listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Celine_Dion). You've been told this (as well as about, more generally, working collaboratively and with others rather than against them) before, and yet time and time again you seem impervious to good, useful, productive advice from other editors. Singles have music videos, not songs; "extra" is no worse than "additional", and what's more, it's shorter. Rearranging lists of items so that they read alphabetically is nothing short of nonsensical; Wikipedia is not a place where you can indulge silly obsessions like this. Your deliberately disruptive behaviour is completely unacceptable, so if you start inexplicably making piddling stylistic changes to this article, or any article you know is being watched by me (or anyone else with whom you've had disagreements in the past or have currently), I'm just going to roll you back, no matter how big of a song-and-dance you make afterwards. Please, just save yourself the embarassment of landing yourself in even more trouble. Extraordinary Machine 22:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Advertizing again? I should start watching the series, I'm sure it's good.
- "Good, useful, productive advice" — making some stylistic rearrangements is considered intolerable to you, apparently; "Additional" is less purple than "extra" (remember, this is an encyclopedia and a not a book); alphabetical lists are generally favourable: they're in publications galore and... must I even bother? Okay: one. I think enough's been said, unless you want me to direct you here. The saga's over: my stylistic edits are not for you to consider "disruptive", especially since you jump only when it's on one of your watched pages. Velten 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here, ladies and gentlement, we have Velten, subject of an arbitration case because of her disruptive behaviour and obsessive editing of articles, making another ill-considered attempt to seek revenge for my blocking her for causing more disruption. Apart from edit-warring, she's (inadvertently or deliberately; I'm really not sure which at this point) worsening the article, including replacing perfectly good words such as "inside" with misplaced formalities such as "within". I hoped you'd have realised now that you're in no position to be second-guessing other people's prose; see We Belong Together FAC nominations and Cool (song) talk page before you vehemently deny this, as you do any wrongdoing on your part. You already look like enough of a fool when you try to satisfy your obsession with annoying me and anyone else who thwarts your attempts to have your way - there's really no need to bring down the quality of articles in the process. Undoubtedly you will respond to this message so that you can believe you have "won" until I leave another reply; unfortunately for you, I won't do that, because your harrying messages speak for themselves without me having to comment on them and it's a waste of my time discussing issues with you when the real reason you came to this article is abundantly clear. Now run along back to articles on subjects in which you actually have a genuine interest (outside annoying editors who are watching them), because your stalker behaviour is wearing thin. Extraordinary Machine 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good! I'll make sure this is publicized well. "Inside" and "within" mean the exact same thing; "misplaced formalities"? Did you think that one up on your own? Do you see me jumping when you edit my material? As far as I'm concerned, this made perfect sense, but I was satisfied with the minor rewrite. You, however, jump at the change of a word. Anyway, I'm done here. Don't expect a response. Velten 23:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here, ladies and gentlement, we have Velten, subject of an arbitration case because of her disruptive behaviour and obsessive editing of articles, making another ill-considered attempt to seek revenge for my blocking her for causing more disruption. Apart from edit-warring, she's (inadvertently or deliberately; I'm really not sure which at this point) worsening the article, including replacing perfectly good words such as "inside" with misplaced formalities such as "within". I hoped you'd have realised now that you're in no position to be second-guessing other people's prose; see We Belong Together FAC nominations and Cool (song) talk page before you vehemently deny this, as you do any wrongdoing on your part. You already look like enough of a fool when you try to satisfy your obsession with annoying me and anyone else who thwarts your attempts to have your way - there's really no need to bring down the quality of articles in the process. Undoubtedly you will respond to this message so that you can believe you have "won" until I leave another reply; unfortunately for you, I won't do that, because your harrying messages speak for themselves without me having to comment on them and it's a waste of my time discussing issues with you when the real reason you came to this article is abundantly clear. Now run along back to articles on subjects in which you actually have a genuine interest (outside annoying editors who are watching them), because your stalker behaviour is wearing thin. Extraordinary Machine 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Canadian pop airplay
10 hits? The U.S. airplay chart is very R&B, rhythmic and hip hop-based, but it's called the Hot 100 Airplay. I don't see the "U.S. R&B Airplay Chart" anywhere there. What makes you think the Canadian airplay chart has to have "pop" in there to verify that it's genre-specific? What other excuses do you have to not permit its inclusion? For someone who has this page watch-listed, I don't see a response anywhere. Velten 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because you claim to have this page watch-listed, I'm going to assume you've been ignoring this discussion. I'm restoring the airplay chart as a result. Velten 16:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Up until now I've avoided replying on this page to Velten. A user who insists on following me and other users to articles and performing piddling, often nonsensical edits and starting disputes for the sole intention of irritating those editors is a disturbing user indeed. Plus the fact that he denies any wrongdoing whatsoever, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But you had to keep picking away, didn't you Velten? I'll keep this brief: you wrote "Restore pop airplay chart; you can go take it up with Jam! or Nielsen BDS if you don't think it's genre-specific." [4] - So I did. According to http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Charts/BDS_1.html, the airplay chart lists "[t]he top played radio tracks in Canada compiled from a national sample of radio stations collected, compiled, and provided by Nielsen BDS." But hang on ... there's no mention of pop or any other genre anywhere on the page. And if all radio stations in the U.S. except R&B/rhythmic/hip hop ones played nothing but, say, country music for a week, the top few slots on the Hot 100 Airplay would be occupied by country songs, not R&B/rhythmic/hip hop, because the Hot 100 Airplay isn't genre-specific. And neither is the Canada Airplay Hits Chart, the top five slots of which are currently occupied by rock songs. All of this is irrelevant, though, when we consider the real reason you're making such a huge song-and-dance about this. I shouldn't have to warn you about the consequences of being deliberately and persistently disruptive on this or any other page. Extraordinary Machine 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it is true that the current top five positions are occupied by rock songs... I guess I'll have to do some investigation. Keep publicizing, and as I said before, I will edit a music-related page whether it's on your watchlist or not. Velten 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Up until now I've avoided replying on this page to Velten. A user who insists on following me and other users to articles and performing piddling, often nonsensical edits and starting disputes for the sole intention of irritating those editors is a disturbing user indeed. Plus the fact that he denies any wrongdoing whatsoever, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But you had to keep picking away, didn't you Velten? I'll keep this brief: you wrote "Restore pop airplay chart; you can go take it up with Jam! or Nielsen BDS if you don't think it's genre-specific." [4] - So I did. According to http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Charts/BDS_1.html, the airplay chart lists "[t]he top played radio tracks in Canada compiled from a national sample of radio stations collected, compiled, and provided by Nielsen BDS." But hang on ... there's no mention of pop or any other genre anywhere on the page. And if all radio stations in the U.S. except R&B/rhythmic/hip hop ones played nothing but, say, country music for a week, the top few slots on the Hot 100 Airplay would be occupied by country songs, not R&B/rhythmic/hip hop, because the Hot 100 Airplay isn't genre-specific. And neither is the Canada Airplay Hits Chart, the top five slots of which are currently occupied by rock songs. All of this is irrelevant, though, when we consider the real reason you're making such a huge song-and-dance about this. I shouldn't have to warn you about the consequences of being deliberately and persistently disruptive on this or any other page. Extraordinary Machine 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MuchMusic Countdown
Maneater did not peak at #2, it went to #1 on the MuchMusic Countdown(MuchMusic series) on December 8, 2006.
