Talk:What You Waiting For?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What You Waiting For? article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Good article What You Waiting For? has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Featured topic candidate star What You Waiting For? is part of the "Love. Angel. Music. Baby." series, a current featured topic candidate. A featured topic should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

Contents

[edit] Common sense?

Technically, this is a number one hit in Australia* (*Australians use the English version too!), and this is the English version...so obviously we should have an article on it. Number One Hits Need Articles. This was also a debut single. All Gwen (and other artists) songs should stay if they can achieve that long of an article...they must be pretty important, and it helps with single chronology --LaotianBoy1991,12/13/05

[edit] Yet another Gwen Stefani Commercial Advertisement?

Fresh from the featured advert for "Cool" we now have yet another free advert masquerading as a legitimate Wiki article. Please explain to me why you feel that in 100 years time someone will type the words "What you waiting for?" into our search engine expecting to see this article? Yes she should have a bio, but a track by track uncritical puff piece for each song? No. --HasBeen 14:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

Hello, I'm just curious to know what this part of your article means:

As the single was released while Billboard Magazine was changing its format, the song was already dropping and was not allowed to chart on The Pop 100 Airplay or Hot Digital Songs.

What format change are you referring to and why would the song "not be allowed" to chart? Has Billboard made any statement regarding this (or other) songs not eligible for those charts based on some criteria?

  • eo 8 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)

Well, whenever Billboard is in the process of introducing a new chart, they always give it a test run, several weeks before it comes out. That's why when a new chart like The Pop 100 was introduced, all the songs did not start a 1 week total, they all started out with different weeks, even though technically, that was the first the chart existed to the public and for official counting.

The song was released in late 2004 and was still on the chart up to about March 2005 or so. The format change came in February 2005. With the format change, Top 40 Tracks was removed and replaced with the Pop 100 Airplay. As you can see, the song charted on Top 40 Tracks, but by the time, it could charted on The Pop 100 Airplay, airplay was already dying, and it never made it to the released public chart, but it definitely made it on the unpublished charts, and also like I said, you can compares its performance on Top 40 Tracks, to get an idea of how it would chart on Pop 100 Airplay. The song did make the Pop 100, but due only to its downloads.

And originally, there was only one chart for digital donwloads called Hot Digital Tracks. And this track listed each version of a song by itself. (So a song could chart with its album version, a remix, a dirty version, etc). On this chart, only onr version of this song charted and it peaked at #4. Later, when Hot Digital Songs came out, the song couldnt chart, because it was already past its peak, but I think its safe to assume that on test charts, the song had performed.

Basically, my point was to say that those songs didnt chart, but not because they flopped, but becasue they were released too late to have made a signifcant impact on those charts, but had they been released earlier, based on comparasions to similar charts, it is most likely, they they charted too. Does that make sense? I'm not sure if I explained it well 8 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand what you are saying. I think it was your use of the term format change that threw me off. The introduction of a new chart in Billboard isn't really a change in format - it simply is the introduction of a new chart. While I appreciate the thorough chart stats in your article, it seems like POV to me to say something along the lines of, "if only such-and-such a chart existed, then this song would have charted much higher." Because those test charts are unpublished, they simply are that: test charts... unofficial, they don't count because they were used internally by Billboard to gauge their usefulness. Saying a song is not allowed to chart sounds to me as if it needs some further explanation as to why Billboard would prevent it from appearing on a chart (kind of like how one would explain that airplay tracks could not chart before 1991 because Billboard's policy at the time was.... blah blah blah, you get the idea).
I've been a Billboard fanatic for 25 years so I know they change stuff around a lot to reflect the changes in the music industry. That small part of your article just sounded like speculation to me, that's all. Keep up the good work!  :)
eo 8 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)

[edit] Material removed and changed in account of video

OmegaWikipedia keeps reversing me on this, so a longer explanation is needed. First, the account of the video was overlong, and fan-gushy in its exhaustive detail and wording. Secondly, it was full of poor style and outright grammatical errors. I've pruned and tidied it in an attempt to make it look like something that's not too out of place in an encyclopedia. To be honest, it still needs more work, so call this an interim compromise. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

How about a compromise in length; one version has 1 paragraph and the other has 6, so how about 3 or 4 paragraphs? This seems like a relatively easy thing to compromise on. Personally I'd tend to favor more detail rather than less but I think 3 or 4 paragraphs could certainly cover the video adequately. Everyking 14:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the one paragraph in my version is longer than two of the paragraphs combined in the original version. It's not length, though — it's all the tosh about her glamourous (sic) dresses, etc. The big question, I suppose, is whether this is encyclopædic; I'd say not. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Failed AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What You Waiting For?. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing paragraph.

This paragraph makes little sense. If someone can make sense of it, then fix it and put it back in.

There are also some parts of the song spoken in Japanese. During the 'Tick-Tocks' Music (Rino Nakasone) in the video says 'Gwen ha, suru no?' 'Ha' which is pronouced 'Wa' and at the end of the song after Gwen says 'Take a chance you stupid ho' "Hey, so she is saying, 'komatterunjyane' which means, instead of thinking worry, just go for it but very forced way." Music And after Music says, "Go back, Do Japan!"

Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

Looks good to me -

  • Critical reception - has two critics name (like PopMatters' Jason Damas) while the others refer just to the website, might want to add the critics name
  • highlight of Love. Angel. Music. Baby. This is the first mention of it in the body - so i think a wikilink would be appropriate.
  • to initially strong airplay. I don't like how this is worded
  • The song performed moderately on other Billboard formats, what formats? How does a song perform "moderately", comma missing in that sentence also

Good work. M3tal H3ad 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vinyl Single

It has more remixes...and it's apparently official. Tracks: 1. Armand van Helden Remix 2. Felix da Housecat's "Thee Dirty Ho" Mix 3. Armand van Helden Dub

Should this be added or not?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/h/a/Talk%7EWhat_You_Waiting_For__e2bc.html"