Talk:Since U Been Gone

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.

"Since U Been Gone" talk page.

[edit] The song?

I removed the heading "The song" because, first, the article is about the song, so there seems little point having a separate section heading, and secondly, the section would be very small, making the article look messay (see the Manual of Style concerning the overuse of sections). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)

I really think it should be put back in. Actually there was a point in the song have its own section before you reduced most of it. The song is about information on the song. The part of the top is the lead section and shouldn't have all that song info OmegaWikipedia 7 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't really follow that. The song can't "have its own section", though, because the whole article is about the song. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

What? Where is the logic in that? We might as well not have any sections then, because the whole article is about the song. The song section really needs to be put in as that is where information goes about the creation of the song, the message/meaning beyond the song, who was involved in the creative process, etc. At any rate, that is way too big for a lead section about a song, and the song section needs to be restored. 7 July 2005 13:39 (UTC) OmegaWikipedia 7 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)

An article on England doesn't have a section "The country"; an article on "Trumpet" doesn't have a section "the instrument". The article is on a song, and is divided into sections; the sections are subdivisions of the main article, and the article can't be a subdivision of itself. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Please stop being hung up on semantics. There should be a section for information on the song that is its own subdivision. It is not the same as the lead section which is only a teaser of information on the song. I think you need to look at other single articles like the Britney Spears articles or the Ashlee Simpson articles, and you will see yes, there is a section for the song info. It may not be exactly called "The Song" but the point is there needs to be a section on information about the song, that is not teaser information for the lead. OmegaWikipedia 7 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

The summary is the first paragraph; fuller information apperas in the second paragraph; then follow sub-sections. We don't use "teasers" in Wikipedia. What counts is the information; it's there. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

If it's the information that counts, why do you keep deleting the info that I add to "Cool". Yes, the summary is the first paragraph about the song, yes more info appears later. That's what I had at first, but then you deleted the info to make it to make it sound like the song didn't have enough information. And by "teaser" I mean the info in the first paragraph. The summary and the information on the song is not the same thing, but you seem to think they are. If you want to see examples of how a single summary should be that makes sense, look ...Baby One More Time (song), (You Drive Me) Crazy, and other related articles from that series. As you can see there is a difference from the summary (it was the third single from the album, etc) to info about the song (how the song was created, who was involved, triva, etc) 7 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

You keep saying that I deleted material; to what exactly are you referring? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

The song section for "Since U Been Gone" was longer, before you decided to chop it down and in the "Cool" article, you completely got rid of chart stats and other video info. OmegaWikipedia 7 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

• From RfC: I think it makes perfect sense for the paragraph you're talking about to be part of the lead section. I even think the paragraph break between it and the opening sentence could be deleted and just have the one opening paragraph. Hermione1980 7 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)

Well, from the way the article is now, yes, it may look better that way, but the original section was longer before Mel decided to edit it. OmegaWikipedia 7 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Can you give me a history link to the version you're referring to? Hermione1980 7 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

Hmmm, dunno, of this will work, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Since_U_Been_Gone&oldid=18234631 Also, if you look at the single sections for the song before and after this (Breakaway and Behind These Hazel Eyes), you can also see how lengthy those sections are for. Mel took away "The Song" section for Behind These Hazel Eyes also and you can see how that looks too lengthy. If you look at Breakaway, you can see how the section of "The Song" helpes to maintain balance in the article. OmegaWikipedia 7 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd forgotten; I changed (in edit [1]):

The single was co-written and co-produced by Max Martin and Dr. Luke. The song is generally considered the song which solidifed the career of Kelly Clarkson. Although, Kelly had scored hit singles before, they were often dismissed for various reasons. "A Moment Like This" was seen as the by product result of Americian Idol, "Miss Independent" was considered only a relative hit, and even "Breakaway" had critics deeming the song a fluke, and that Kelly had gotten lucky. However, with "Since U Been Gone", Kelly's career became sealed as she was able to define her new rock/pop sound and appeal to new markets. In her pop/rock hybrid smash, Kelly recalls a failed relationship, but is very glad that it's over as she exclaims "since u been gone...I can breathe for the first time!"

to:

The single was co-written and co-produced by Max Martin and Dr. Luke. With "Since U Been Gone", Clarkson's career became settled, as she was able to define her new rock/pop sound and appeal to new markets. The song recalls a failed relationship with relief.

Most of the paragraph was in fact about other songs, and once that had been removed, together with the speculation and fan-gush, there wasn't a lot left. Unsurprisingly, really; it's one of tens of thousands of here today, gone tomorrow pop singles. That it gets a whole article to itself in an encyclopædia hoping to appear a respectable reference work is somewhat dubious in my view, but I've not tried to push that here.

The removed material would in any case have needed substantial editing ("solidified the career", "by product result", "Americian Idol", "career became sealed", "her pop/rock hybrid smash", etc.). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Mel here. Remember WP:NPOV. There isn't a need to go into the details of her career before this song in such detail; if anything, that goes in the main Kelly Clarkson article, without the POV. Hermione1980 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

Well could a compromise be reached with a new section on the song? The article was still in transition, and even if you don't agree with what was there before, that's fine. But, Mel there was no reason to kill that section without giving it a fair chance. There is much more material that could be added to the song if we don't include those parts that you guys don't agree with. And like I've mentioned before, if you look in most single articles, there is a section that talks about information on the song, even with the Kelly Clarkson singles before and after this. Anyway, I guess if "Cool" has gone back to the way it was, can we just revert things to the way they were, and there would be a new more concise section on the song ? OmegaWikipedia 7 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

Well, Breakaway (song) needs a bit of a POV rewrite, but aside from that (and some stray capitals in headings) it seems to be an okay example. What exactly did you have in mind, Omega? It would be fine to give a bit of background information on the song, but maybe you should post your idea here first before putting it in the article. Hermione1980 7 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

Great, Hermione. I'll post a rewrite here later. OmegaWikipedia 7 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

(Ok, here's a rewrite. It's a bit long, but I can certainley tone it down. I just wanted to let you guys get a rundown of the content first.) 8 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)

The single was co-written and co-produced by Max Martin and Dr. Luke. Although Clarkson had previously had hit singles, her previous few singles had performed poorly on the chart, and with her fellow Americian Idol alumni, Justin Guarini being dropped by the label they shared due to similar chart performance, industry critics speculated that Clarkson's career would be soon met with the same fate. To counteract a possible drop from her label, Clarkson's decided she needed more control over her career and the direction of her music, and with the help of a lawyer and advice from another American Idol alumni, Clay Aiken, Clarkson was able to get out of her contract and veer towards the pop/rock direction.

With her new pop/rock direction, Clarkson had nearly completed a new album, but was still with the problem of what her first single should be. (Her previous single "Breakaway was only considered a "stopgate" single. Originally, she had entertained the notion of using some songs that she had written with Ben Moody and David Hodges formerly of the gothic rock band Evanescence, but her label felt that the songs were a bit too dark for a first single. After a suggestion from a friend, Clarkson went to Sweden, where she met up with producers, Max Martin and his junior partner, Dr. Luke.

Although Martin had been succesful in previous years for his pop singles with Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys, the music industry had pigeonholed him as a pop producer. As a result of this and with the landscape of Top 40 Music changing, Martin's career had slowed down, and it had been hard for him to find new production work. Originally, he did not want to work with Clarkson, as he felt she had wanted him to recreate his pop sound for her records. Clarkson, however, had become aware of Martin's history with rock, as although he was most known as a pop producer, he had rock roots as a former member of a heavy metal band, and he had also produced other rock singles before like Bon Jovi's "It's My Life".

Once Martin and Clarkson discovered that they both were on the same page with the rock direction of their music, they set out to write songs together. A song that had previously been written by Martin and Dr. Luke, however, caught the attention of Clarkson. The song was relayed to her label executives, and with a full unison of approving opinions, "Since U Been Gone" was declared the first single. Clarkson still had to deal with Martin's slight pop edges, as originally, the song had even a greater pop influence, until Clarkson had asked for a slightly harder rock feel with increased drums.

With the success of "Since U Been Gone", Clarkson's career became settled, as she was able to define her new rock/pop sound that she had only previously explored. The single also helped make Clarkson appeal to new international markets, as previously had main market had been in Western countries like the United States and Canada. Credit is also given to this song for reviving the once stagnant careers of Max Martin and Dr. Luke. In essence, The song recalls a failed relationship with relief as Clarkson declares in the song, "Since u been gone, I can breathe for the first time."

I've copy-edited and tidied the above text:

It could do with a little more work here and there, but too much of this material surely belongs in the article on Clarkson, not here. --(Mel Etitis Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Cool. Well, I'm glad we were able to resolve this. OmegaWikipedia 8 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Good work. Hermione1980 8 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)

Am I too late to have a say in this now-resolved mess? DrippingInk 18:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'm not really happy with the new material, so speak on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you aren't? Refer to my idiotic post in the Behind These Hazel Eyes talk page then. 64.231.66.251 00:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me as though most editors dislike having a "The song" section, then, so I've removed the heading again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Good. Now let's leave it that way. DrippingInk 13:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think most people dislike it. Only you, DripppinkInk, and that unknown IP. If you look at many single articles out there, there is a header there too. And Mel, I think you're being a really sore sport about this. You were the one who asked for the RFC in the first place. A third party came and we had a compromise. Just because you can't get what you want, doesn't mean you should edit things to the way they were. OmegaWikipedia 13:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Except that the third party didn't like the section header either. It really does look silly. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

We must not be reading the same things, because the third party evantually decided it was OK. OmegaWikipedia 17:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

She said that the text was OK; she made no comment about a section headed "The song" (which has has been remarked on adversely by someone else on another Talk page of an article where you did the same thing). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If she had an issue with the header, I'm thinking she probably would have said something about it. The issue was always more about the header, not the content. And besides, you know why you asked for the RFC. I don't know why you are being such an unreasonable and irrational person in this. You were the one who asked for the RFC in the first place, and you should follow the compromise given. OmegaWikipedia 21:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I know this isn't the right place to be talking about this, but Mel, could I ask why you keep reverting the anonymous edits being made to the Spice Girls article? There is nothing wrong with them at all. DrippingInk 18:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Its English was odd ("and the Spice Girls began their solo records". "Although they never officially broke-up, some people believe that they did, but were just hesitant from announcing this globally."), and it added no new information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but that's true what the person added. Just making sure. DrippingInk 22:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten it (but I don't think that anything was added; what was there was recast). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You know, I really, really dislike Mel's use of rollback in content disputes. That the sort of thing a person should be de-adminned for. Furthermore, I think the version with the "song" header is more logical and also more consistent with general style. Everyking 09:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, your opinion holds no interest for me, based as it is is on no Wikipedia policy or even guideline, and couched as it is in intemperate language that an admin certainly shouldn't use of another. You're also apparently unaware of what we're discussing; perhaps you were too eager to get in your personal attack on me to bother reading properly. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute but a dispute about ignoring the style guide. If someone reverts to a version contradicting the style guide (and grammar and orthography), it borders on vandalism and is valid case for rollback. --Pjacobi 11:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Why exactly does OmniWekipedia keep putting back an article with style errors. The capitals should disappear everywhere, especially "... In essence, The" that can't be right. Personally I think "The song" heading is valid, for a start it brings the TOC up to the top of the page. JohnCastle 17:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

My concern was that, as the article is essentially about a song, having a subsection called "The song" looks peculiar. When I took the question to RfC, one editor turned up, and agreed that it looked strange. Another editor produced a long addition to the beginning of the article, which the RfC-editor was happy with, and which I (somewhat reluctantly) went along with; neither of us said that using "The song" as a header was OK. This is now being described (by those who want to keep the section) as the idea of having a "The song" section winning an RfC, with "everyone" agreeing that it should stay... I'll go along with consensus, of course — but not with a faked consensus.

I asked for a compromise, she agreed, and afterwards said good work. Mel, you're trying to weasel out of it again. What do you want her do do, spell it out on a silver platter? If she didn't think the content was worthy of a song banner, she would have said so, and not left. Please stop manipulating things to your way, when theyre not.

As for why they're reverting the corrections to style, I can't say. they all seem contemptuous of Wikipedia style (two of them having said so directly). I've tried, and am still trying, to get them to discuss the issues properly, but they're not interested so far. --Mel Etitis (Μελ :: Uh no. I guess you enjoy twisting the facts. Ετητης) 20:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that this discussion is starting to sound maybe a tad bit stupid, now, don't you? If compromise doesn't work, if "Wikipedia" style is being ingored, even if only one person prefers a certain header... change it! Has anyone bothered to look at the headers being used in Gwen Stefani's single articles? All four of the articles – "What You Waiting For?", "Rich Girl", "Hollaback Girl", and "Cool" – have the same one. DrippingInk 19:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Song information! Great compromise! Life is great! DrippingInk 15:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unified charts

I don't vote on having unified charts. They don't exhibit a clean matter, and appear to be very confusing to the eye. To the users attempting to create unified charts, please do not abuse these actions; the positions do not look good as one great list. Winnermario 23:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Your edit summary referred to not answering your questions; which questions? You seem simply to have issued orders.
2. What has voting to do with it?
3. "They don't exhibit a clean matter"? I'm not sure what you mean, but if it's just that you think that the unified chart is unclear, I can't see what on Earth is unclear about it.
4. "please do not abuse these actions"? Abuse what actions?
5. If you have no genuine objection to the unified chart (which makes more sense, and involves no arbitrary distinction between "the U.S." and "everywhere else", please stop reverting. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mario. The seperated chart looks better. OmegaWikipedia 17:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

1. In what way do they look better? Separating them serves no purpose except to make the U.S. a special case, which is mildly PoV.
2. "the charts work better when seperated" (sic). How? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

OKAY, THAT'S IT! I'm sorry, I said I would try and not to blow up on anybody while on this site, but Mel: get off of Wikipedia. I don't believe anything you have written above, being unclear with everything I have said! And WHY THE HELL are you putting the UK beneath Canada when that stupid argument about "important countries" was being held? You are truly one screwed up person! I don't agree with almost any of your edits on this website, and you always expect to have anything your way!

So get the hell off of Wikipedia! And don't bother to tell me "no personal attacks", because could give a bloody damn what you have to say—I am aggrevated with your presence, and I am aggrevated with all of your edits, with the song titles, it's just unbelievable!

So get lost, and don't bother coming back. Winnermario 21:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well put, Winnermario. Truer words have never been spoken. DrippingInk 21:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention, if you block me from editing for a bit of time, I could care less. Winnermario 21:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a babysitting service --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Get the fuck off this site! GET THE FUCK OFF OF IT RIGHT NOW! I will not tolerate your ignorance. You expect everyone to follow your edits because you think they're the right ones. Well I strongly disagree with the majority of your edits, and you have provided no reason as to why yours should be the ones to stay. So fuck off!

And block me if you wish, and send me to these pathetic places of "what Wikipedia does not tolerate" or whatever. I could care less. Once I return, you're gone.

And did I mention FUCK YOU?! Winnermario 22:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons For Changes

The USA Charts should be listed in one table because they all have something in common namely, they all come from the same region ie. USA.

The International Charts also have a common element, namely they all come from regions outside the USA.

Listing the two tables as one does not make sense because there are many USA charts and only one chart from each of the other regions.

-South African User

THANK YOU! You are aboslutely correct, but I doubt that idiot of a Mel Etitis will bother listening—he does not compromise, and expects things to flow his way. Winnermario 13:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

But "his way" happens to abide to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. See Talk:The Trouble with Love Is. Extraordinary Machine 14:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Format

I developed this slightly revised format. Let's see how many arguments it can spawn. Boa

[edit] Number of Weeks on Hot 100

According to the Billboard website, "Since U Been Gone" has spent 46 weeks on the Hot 100 (Issue date October 29, 2005). Therefore, there must be an error in chart trajectory. Will someone please find out. -Concerned

[edit] Single certification

I seriously cannot find a website that says "Since U Been Gone" is now certified 6x platinum. My sources, the Billboard website, says that it is still 5x platinum. If anyone could help out on this, I'd appreciate this a bunch!

[edit] Charts removed

The Hot 100 Airplay, Pop 100 Airplay and Hot Digital Songs charts are all components of other Billboard charts that are included in the "Charts" section (they are used to calculate other ones), so mentioning them here isn't necessary (why include five when two will do?). There's no point including the Hot Digital Tracks either, because it wasn't a different version of the song that charted. Extraordinary Machine 16:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A complete overhaul of everything music/Billboard Chart related is needed.

Billboard has been fudging with how they certify albums, and especially singles for the past 5 years now in order to compensate for the new wave of digital downloads. Most articles referencing sale numbers do not cite sources, and some falsly claim a single sold, for example, 2 million copies, and is therefore double platinum, when in fact, during that time period, "platinum" for singles equalled 200,000 digital downloads. So, the single would in reality be 10 times platinum.

I say Wikipedia does away with the "certifications" and just goes with sales numbers. Or, if dozens of people feel up to the task, they need to go through every music article referencing sales and find and cite sources and correct factual errors. This problem is really hurting the already shakey integrity of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.181.238.173 (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC).