Talk:Shake It Off

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shake It Off article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

How is "Shake It Off" a 'coming-of-age anthem' as it says on the page? User:68.159.71.128

If you look at "We Belong Together", Mariah is very passive and whines about wanting her man back. With "Shake If Off", Mariah becomes emancipated and realizes she doesnt' need anyone, and can make it out on the world on her own. User:OmegaWikipedia

Contents

[edit] You know something...

God, she's hot! Pacific Coast Highway 03:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


EM, numbers are allowed to be written, and theres no reason to use that single template you created today. In addition, I dont see how that is WikiMusic policy, if no one agreed to that, it was made a week ago, and it was just randomly edited in OmegaWikipedia 00:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

OM, I urge you to take a good, long read of the WikiProject Music and WikiProject Song guidelines. As on We Belong Together, your blanket revert is once again uncalled for. Templates are useful because they reduce the size of the article, and make editing easier by not having line upon line of messy syntax to wade through. It also establishes consistency across single articles in Wikipedia: if there's a change made to the template, it's reflected across every article, which is easier than editing each article one by one. But you're rolling back even basic corrections I made, such as inserting parentheses around years of songs. Why? Extraordinary Machine 01:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Blanket revert? First of all, please check the edit history. I have never made any blanket reverts concerning this current edit war. You on the other hand have already made two. I took a look at it, and unless I'm missing something, the thing about chart positions being in their own box was never a so called policy until like a week ago. On top of that, I didnt see any consensus on how that got put into the article. Somebody felt like putting that in, and so they did. If I want to, I can edit that to change the so called policy. If we're talking about consistency, this template has been used on most single articles, and I see no reason for you to start using this one. Just because you created a template today and want it to be the main one does not make it official policy. OmegaWikipedia 01:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Your revert of my "We Belong Together" edits introduced a plethora of spelling and grammar mistakes into the article. Yes, you are mistaken: chart positions have had their own section in the original infobox since it was first created. If you hadn't noticed, I made the new infobox as a compromise between the "official infobox" and the messy, "custom" ones floating around various single articles. The infobox you prefer does not conform to WikiProject Music and Song guidelines, the one I created does. Just because "your" infobox has been used on many single articles doesn't mean it is the "right" one. And I've already said why running commentaries of Carey's performances do not belong on Wikipedia: they are only of interest to hardcore fans. Extraordinary Machine 01:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
First of all, like I said I didn't do a blanket revert. Do you know what that term entails? Sorry if your spelling got lost, but youre the only who has commited this action. And no, I'm not mistaken. That single infobox was created on May 10th. Hello?!? The header I have been using, I didn't even create, and it was used on several article before I even came, way before May 10th. The singlebox I'm using doesn't violate anything on the WikiMusic policy. Somebody who edited that article to say that positions need their own box without any consensus or discussion holds no weight. If I wanted to I could edit that page. The infoboxes are fine. OmegaWikipedia 02:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I apologise for saying you were blanket reverting (your edits do retain some of my contributions), but you must look more closely at what you are reverting, especially for corrections to spelling and grammar. Extraordinary Machine 12:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Your edit has bastardized the chart performance section. Ther was no need to remove the section on Kanye not having an advanced single. OmegaWikipedia 02:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh my god. Why did you ruin the section on Kanye West? You removed important information and context that would make the description confusing if it didnt have it. 1st of all, the paragraph on Kanye's downloads are very important as that has never happened before, the political controversy concerning the song's success are very important too and need a paragraph (have you not been watching the news or having about the Kanye West/Bush controversy?!), a paragraph is also needed detalinging the reasoning and logic behind this jump. Like I said, some of this I didnt write. But its fan from so called fancruft. If you want to tone it down, please do, but don't remove important content. OmegaWikipedia 02:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I looked on Google news, and noticed no reports of controversy regarding the downloads of "Gold Digger". Again, it seems to me like a hardcore Carey fan decided to create their own excuse for why Carey was dethroned, which is a violation of Wikipedia's no original research and neutral point of view policies. I have mentioned that it was its first week on the downloads chart, and that West had been under the spotlight following his comments at the Katrina fundraising concert. The version you reverted to was grossly POV. You're going to have to cite your sources if you revert it again. Extraordinary Machine 12:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
WTH?!? First of all, there is nothing POV about what I want in the paragraph. It is fact that Kanye's downloads were condensed due to the unusual chart practice of not releasing a digital single .That is hardly fancruft. Hello?! It's how business works! Have you ever seen a product in your life held back that people want go on sale? How do people react?
"Billboard has gotten many comments crying foul as many have alleged shady dealing...Others have also postulated that Kanye West was probably immeasurably helpd by the controversy surrounding his Hurricane Katrina remarks...Carey supporters declaim that political controversy should play "no role" in who is #1, and that "Shake It Off" was robbed...Supporters of West label all this grapes of the sourest order": all highly POV/original research comments, none of which are supported by sources. Extraordinary Machine 12:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not even talking about that section! I'm talking about his marketing strategy! Didn't you read what I just wrote above?! OmegaWikipedia 12:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Those quotes are from the paragraph about his marketing strategy. Extraordinary Machine 15:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia is not a collection of false or misleading information. What in the world were you thinking when you put down that she is slated to perform at the World Music Awards!? Unless, the past has suddenly become the future, Mariah performed about a week ago. Please take some consideration before you fill these articles with misinformation. OmegaWikipedia 02:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
...nor is Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because it is a fact a few dancers jumped into water at the end of Carey's "Shake It Off" performance at MTV doesn't mean that that fact should be included in the article. That level of detail on one single performance is, as I have said, fancruft to the extreme. Am I wrong, when seeing an empty section header entitled "World Music Awards", in assuming that the performance had not occurred yet? Extraordinary Machine 12:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Yep, you're wrong. If it hadn't happened, why would we make a section for it? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Please remember that. OmegaWikipedia 12:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
That's my point: a section wasn't made, a section header was just dumped into the article and left for everybody else to make head-or-tail of it. Saying "Carey will perform the song at the so-and-so show" is not crystal-ballery as it is set to happen; saying "Carey is expected to win multiple Grammys and other awards for the success of her songs" is crystal-ballery. That's one of the reasons why I trimmed down the We Belong Together article. Extraordinary Machine 12:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I dont think the article said she was expected to win, but expected to get nominated (which should be put back in) OmegaWikipedia 12:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, um, no, it shouldn't, unless you cite a reliable source. Extraordinary Machine 15:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

EM, seeing as though we are currently in an edit war of sorts, I don't see how it's fair to leave both articles in your editing style. So, I've changed Shake It Off to be in my style, but I'll leave We Belong Together in your style for now. Is that fair? Otherwises, we'll just keep reverting each other like all day and night. I understand your need for parentheses for the year, so I added them to make you happy.

I see what you were talking about with the Kanye West section, which wasnt the section I had a problem with. You edited the mentioning of the markering strategy which I put back in, but I agree with you on the POV comments which were removed. As for the live performance section, I've restored it too, only because I tried to edit it, but there was no way to edit that section without it losing its effectiveness. Have you seen the performance? It's a very bombastic and complicated arrangement. If Mariah had just stood there and done nothing, then I would agree with you, but based on the complicated arrangement of the performance, I think it needs to stay. OmegaWikipedia 01:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

About the lead section: "peaked at number two" isn't very useful to anyone unless the statement specifies what chart it was on (remember, as I said, not everybody who reads Wikipedia is American). Secondly, it's makes for somewhat choppy reading to phrases such as "so far" and "top position" in consecutive sentences. The mention of "We Belong Together" is odd unless you also mention first that it is Carey's previous single (not everybody who reads these articles are Carey fans, either).

POV in the article, again, is also a concern; there are blatant examples like "this particular performance was heartfelt", and there are less obvious instances such as this: "Nevertheless, to help the song fight "Gold Digger" on the charts..." Describing the singles' vying for the number one position as a "fight" is slightly POV...it implies that "Gold Digger" somehow doesn't deserve to be at number one, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Carey's performance may very well have been complicated (I wouldn't know, I haven't seen it), but that level of detail on a single performance is not encyclopedic information. There is another option, though, which I had forgotten about: have you ever considered setting up a Mariah Carey Wikicity? It means that you can write all you want to about a particular subject, with far less constraints than if you were to add your work to Wikipedia. There are wikicities for Star Wars and Ashlee Simpson, and I think the overview of Carey's performance would be better off at a Mariah Carey wikicity, to be perfectly honest.

Also, creating a new subsection of the article only to add two sentences and conclude with "Information about the performance will be iflled in soon" makes the article, and Wikipedia as a whole, look unprofessional. Closely related to this, I request that you proofread your contributions before you send them in by using the "Show preview" and/or "Show changes" buttons in the edit form, as I have seen various typos and grammatical errors in your edits (this isn't a criticism, just an observation). Finally, about the infobox, I think I'm less concerned about what it actually looks like than I am about articles using raw syntax instead of an infobox, for the reasons I outlined on your talk page. If you want to debate with other users about what infoboxes for singles should look like, then you're probably better off making your voice heard at WikiProject Music and WikiProject Songs. Extraordinary Machine 14:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Did some minor tidying to clean the lead. What is POV about GD fighting SIO? If you got that idea, sorry, but that was not implied. They're both fighting to be #1. GD is winning, so Mariah's label is trying to find a way to get to the top. That's it. Wikicity sounds intresting, maybe I'll look at it. I usually check my spelling, but like everyone, mistakes do go through OmegaWikipedia 02:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I must once again emphasise the importance of specifying which chart the song has reached number two on. You'll also need to cite sources for the "Some analysts have alleged shady dealing" claim if you want it kept in. Also, it doesn't really matter what exactly Kanye West said at the fundraiser, or what Eva Longoria said to introduce Carey at the MTV Awards. Additionally, forcing new lines within image captions using <br> is unnecessary and makes the captions look messy (see the second music video screenshot), as does the constant repetition of the song's title (I think people would know what it was called by the time they got to that section). Also, I think it's better to say "the "We Belong Together" remix" than "We Belong Together (Remix)". Lastly, please don't go overboard on using tables. Just because information can be presented in a table, doesn't mean it should. Extraordinary Machine 17:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
There is no need to do that. Why do we need to say the song reached #2 on the Billboard Hot 100? It's generally understood that chart positions are for the Hot 100. No one is going to think that it hit #1 on the Pop 100. Even the singlebox (the one you created or "mine" doesn't even say that!) On top of that we dont say that a song hit #1 on the UK Singles Chart or ARIA either. Even your edit of WBT didnt mention that! By the same token, you can cite source that prove that it didn't happen? It works both ways. If you want to remove it, you'll have to prove it didn't happen. What Eva and Kanye West said is very important, especially Kanye West. There's no need to downplay his statements because you find them offensive. Most of these article conformed to that standard of the screenshot (before someone removed them because of the "Mariah" in it), and they work because most article have one screenshot, this just happens to have three. Also the name of the song is "We Belong Together (Remix)". In remix notation, "We Belong Together" remix is a generic term used for only remix even bootleg remixes. The name of that remix specifically is "We Belong Together (Remix)". How am I going overboard on tables? Aren't you the one who went overboard on references on the main Mariah Carey page? There's no need to dramatize this. I added one table for the video charts. That's all I did. OmegaWikipedia 09:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
"It's generally understood that chart positions are for the Hot 100." – Um, no it isn't. As I've said, it's wrong to assume that everybody who reads this article will automatically know that the lead section is referring to the U.S. Billboard Hot 100. Wikipedia is not written exclusively for an American audience. It is an English-language encyclopedia, meaning that people from all around the world visit. As a non-American, I'm a little insulted by statements such as "No one is going to think" and "It's generally understood".
"By the same token, you can cite source that prove that it didn't happen?" – So now, instead of actually telling me where you got your information from, you are now saying that I am obliged to prove to you that what you say isn't true. I'm not saying the statement isn't true, I'm saying that it is not a reliable piece of information to include in the article because it is not supported by a reliable source. Without a source, it ends up sounding like more "excuses" written by a Carey fan and without a source, it should not be in the article. Oh, and by your logic, if I were to say that analysts claimed that the promotion for "Shake It Off" was wrought with "shady dealing", you wouldn't be able to remove it, as you wouldn't have a source that proved it wrong.
"What Eva and Kanye West said is very important, especially Kanye West." – Recounting word for word the introduction of a single performance is fancruft. I, personally, do not find West's statements offensive, I just don't think the exact quote is notable enough to be included in the article. That kind of detail should be left to the main Kanye West article.
"Most of these article conformed to that standard of the screenshot". – I have never seen an article (other than Carey single articles, and I assume you are responsible for the image captions in those) where the image caption begins with the song's title. Neither have I seen an article where somebody has deliberately made sure that a short phrase such as "on the" is on a line of its own. Those edits you have made are useless and add nothing to the caption.
"The name of that remix specifically is "We Belong Together (Remix)"". – Okay, I do admit I made an error in one of my edits: not specifying that the DJ Clue remix was the one being performed. However, you didn't either. Most people won't know what "We Belong Together (Remix)" is )there is, after all, more than one remix), but mentioning DJ Clue specifies which one it is.
"How am I going overboard on tables? Aren't you the one who went overboard on references on the main Mariah Carey page?". – Firstly, what is the point of dredging up edits I made months ago to an unrelated article (edits which I realised were wrong)? Secondly, the Live performance tracker and Video chart tables could easily be converted into prose (the video chart is only three lines). Like I said, just because information can be put in a table doesn't mean it should. Extraordinary Machine 17:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

EM, what happened to this compromise we had set out? Where we would talk before I edited We Belong Together, and you would talk before you edited Shake It Off? Or do you want to be a free for all, where I'll edit, and you'll revert, and you'll edit, and I'll revert? Do you want an endless revert war?

Anyway, before you or anyone tries to cry foul, I kept your wikilinkin/spelling/etc corrections, but that content change is not right. The critical response section might have some potential, but a review from eopinions.com?! It needs a lot of working on

Wikipedia is not written exclusively for an American audience. As a non-American, I'm a little insulted by statements such as "No one is going to think" and "It's generally understood".

I like how you quoted me conviently and left out my valid points about the issue. I mentioned this, but you conviently skipped it (maybe a non USA bias?). But I'll ask it again...then why is it OK for you to say that We Belong Together peaked at #2 in the UK, but not the UK Singles Chart? Also the single box like I said once again ("your version" or "my version" doesnt' mention that). How is that OK? We definitely elaborate it on the chart performance section, but its superfluous in the lead. (Nor do we need a lead mentioning 2005 and 2005 in music! Pick one and use 2005 to show it) When wikipedia talks about movies going to #1 also, they dont mention the technical name of the box office charts. Do people get confused?

Oh, and by your logic, if I were to say that analysts claimed that the promotion for "Shake It Off" was wrought with "shady dealing", you wouldn't be able to remove it, as you wouldn't have a source that proved it wrong.

Go for it, brother. In fact, I'll do you one better. I'll put it in myself, as thoughts have been raised by chart analysts who are crying foul play. My point is to report the facts accurately, not to remove real thoughts on the issue

I just don't think the exact quote is notable enough to be included in the article. That kind of detail should be left to the main Kanye West article.

The statement is very important. Kanye was known in the music industry and was very popular, but he's just risen to a whole new level of stardom due to these comments, which even have caught the attention of the White House! To not put in that quote, would be very misleading. Right now, all it says is that Kanye did something. Did what?! One can help to understand what help causes unforeseen activity due to comments like this

I have never seen an article (other than Carey single articles, and I assume you are responsible for the image captions in those)

Yes, I even said it was for the "Carey" articles

Most people won't know what "We Belong Together (Remix)" is )there is, after all, more than one remix), but mentioning DJ Clue specifies which one it is.

And how do you know what most people know and don't know? The name of the remix is "We Belong Together (Remix)" whether you like it or not. The remix isn't "We Belong Together (DJ Clue Remix)". Here's you just made up a name that didn't exist. You can't assign a remix a name which is not named. The Bad Boy Remix of "Honey" is "Honey (Bad Boy Remix)", it is not "Honey (Diddy Remix)". If you want to mention the DJ Clue portion of it you can mention something like "We Belong Together (Remix)" (which was produced by DJ Clue), but don't make up fandom names.

....the Live performance tracker and Video chart tables could easily be converted into prose (the video chart is only three lines). Like I said, just because information can be put in a table doesn't mean it should. Extraordinary Machine 17:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

OmegaWikipedia 07:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC) The live performance section will definitely grow, and the video chart actually has 6 major charts (but I dont know the stats of the other 3, unless you know?). Some singles only have international charts for a few countries, but we dont remove them either

I'm not going to keep going in this circle anymore. You are constantly rolling back almost all of my edits (including spelling, link and grammar fixes), despite my efforts to justify them as best as I can. Nobody owns these articles; you can't just say "okay, we'll keep this article in your style, but I get to keep this article in mine". I don't have to pass my edits by you. Nobody does. Keep in mind that you are already in violation of, among others, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AWT, WP:CITE, WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Captions and Wikipedia:Fancruft. And for the record, I like Carey and "Shake It Off". Extraordinary Machine 17:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
EXCUSE ME?! Can you not read? I said above that I included all your spelling/link/grammer fixes to the best of my ability. First of all, Mel toned down the section you had a problem with to an acceptable standard so that it wasnt "biased" anymore and so that it was NPOV. (Something you wouldn't do, instead just removing the entire section and reverting the whole time). You are just as guilty of many of those policies you're accusing me of. You're acting now like you own this.
And no, I never said that you owned WBT and that I owned SIO. I said to prevent an edit war, we should leave one article in my style and one article in your style for now to compare and contrast and to talk about it on the talk page to avoid an edit war. This as you know was supposed to be temporary. We were supposed to discuss what we could do, and then reach a medium to implement changes, but no, you just want everything your way, and you're acting like this article belongs to you. You're clealy violating the ownership policy.
I'v accomodated to most of your wishes. But I draw the line on you deleting content and merging unrelated setcions. Now, do you want to talk and compromise on the talk pages, or are we just going to have edit wars? OmegaWikipedia 09:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For the record

Just for the record, I talked about this on EM's talk page, but there were some lines in the article that EM found to be not NPOV. His edits removed important information, and I tried to compromise, but he thought they were still not NPOV. Finally Mel in his second to last edit toned down the article to an acceptable level that I agreed with that was NPOV. Therefore, if I did commit violations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR,WP:AWT,WP:CITE in the past edits, I apoligize, as that was not my intention. There was a disagreement among some key words, which a third user was able to help us resolve.

For accusations of other matters, please see the talk page of User:Extraordinary Machine for more details. OmegaWikipedia 23:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What Mel Etitis actually did was perform a revert to a version containing my rewrite, combined with a few other nips and tucks of his own. Mel also retained my trimming of the crufty live performances section which you had previously insisted on reverting to every single time. See the relatively minor differences between my version and Mel's here, and the much larger difference between your version and Mel's here. Edit histories don't lie. Extraordinary Machine 23:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
No, they don't lie. But I'm not even talking about that edit. You either linked the wrong one, or you're confused. But in any case, I don't have any issue with the current chart performance section, so I'm not violating those policies anymore am I? OmegaWikipedia 23:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
"I'm not even talking about that edit." – Actually, I think you are. I would say I was sorry that your attempt to discredit me has gone up in smoke before your very eyes, but I won't, as I'm not. Somebody else decided to revert to my edits of the page rather than retaining yours...now, what does that tell you? Extraordinary Machine 00:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
If you think I'm talking about that edit, you are sadly mistaken. I even said above that I was talking about the "second to last edit", but apparently, you can't read. My attempt has gone up in smoke? First of all, no that wasn't my intention. I'm not trying to do anything malicious here, which you seem to be trying to do. LOL You need to calm down with your icy remarks. Look at Vision of Love, EM. Mel only did a partial revert of that article. Now, what does that tell you? Not to mention that Mel didnt follow your revert until the last set of exchanges for this article. OmegaWikipedia 00:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Let me take you through this step by step: I restored my edits here, did more edits here, here, and here, User:Journalist did an edit here, an anon did an edit here, User:Musicpvm performed a minor edit here, then you reverted most of my edits here, and then Mel Etitis restored them here. Extraordinary Machine 12:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh* How many times do I have to say this? (This will be the third time now I believe, but what can you do?) Once again, I am talking about the second to last edit, NOT those edits. OmegaWikipedia 03:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Product placement for Louis Vuitton

If there's a reason why WP should advertise Vuitton bags within this article, let's hear it. Or if the brand is significant to the song (rather than merely to, let's say, the record company's profits), let's hear it. -- Hoary 11:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I've placed this as a sample article at RfC (regarding disagreements over table formatting), and created a discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The overweight girl

I hate to butt in, but personally I never thought that the overweight girl was a homage to "Fantasy" unlike several fans on websites such as Mariah Daily. The overweight girl in "Shake It Off" is performing her dance with two other girls that are hard to see before the scene cuts to the fake Mariah Carey billboard. I just thought the overweight girl was dancing the same way the other girls she was with were dancing--it's very similar to the overweight girl in "Fantasy," but I don't exactly see a connection to be made between the two videos. (This is just my opinion here.)

[edit] Young Geesy?

Um, I believe the remix is featuring Young Jeezy.. it is not spelled as Geesy, Shall I correct this error?

As4xx 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?!?!

uh... does someone wanna share what POV is... I'm a little clueless here... 72.75.73.76 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/a/Talk%7EShake_It_Off_cfb0.html"