Talk:Because of You (Kelly Clarkson 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

I'm confused with Mel Etitis. Why is the header "Song information" being removed? If it's in every other music single article, there is no excuse to be removing it from this one. Winnermario 23:18, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

  1. It isn't in every other music-single article.
  2. We use section headings to break up text when it's too long; sections help to break up a long article into manageable chunks for easier reading. This article is too short to need it, as indicated by the fact that the whole of the text becomes the one "section". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Digital songs and digital songs?

There appear to be two "Hot Digital Songs" in the charts posted in the article. Did the person who added these positions perhaps mean "hot digital songs" and "hot digital tracks"? Someone with the following knowledge should make the correct edits immediately. Thank you. Winnermario 23:20, September 13, 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

[edit] RfC

This article has been posted at RfC as a sport of test case for these issues in general. The two main questions are:

  1. Should an article that's this short be divided into sections?
    1. Pro: other similar (but longer) articles are divided.
    2. Con: it goes against the guidelines in Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Structure of the article: "veruse of subheadings should be avoided, as it can make the article look cluttered. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading".
  2. Should the table of information be divided into two or more smaller tables?
    1. Pro: it's less confusing.
    2. Con: It's neater and more compact; there are no (NPoV) grounds to distinguish between the U.S. and "International" (or between "The World" and "Billboard").

With the "pro" reasons I'm playing devil' advocate, as it's not my position. If I've misunderstood the reasons, or omitted some, I'm sure the proponents will correct me...

[edit] Discussion

Mel, I have some other points I'd like to add. Should I edit them onto your heading or just state my views here? Let me know.

Either would be fine. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, for the tables, I believe they should not be compacted. Coming from the point of view of compaction, nowadays many (if not most) singles of these types of popular music have multiple versions charting on the same chart. As these are different entries from one another, it needs to be pointed out and stated. While older singles tend to have only one version chart, as stated above most newer songs have multiple versions charting. For the sake of consistency, one look should be applied to the tables, and that is the current seperated view. Some have argued that the songs with multiple versions could be left alone, and the versions with one version could be compacted, but it would present a very messed up look on a chronology. For the sake of consistency, the current seperated and uncompacted view should be used. OmegaWikipedia 22:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. All articles don't have to be formatted exactly the same way.
  2. The tables could be easily compacted by combining both into one, and removing the name of the song (only include that distinction if, and only if, different versions of a song chart on major notable charts). And we certainly don't need a chart trajectory. Of what encyclopedic value is such a table? It turns this article and the others into scorecards for each artist, an attempt to show "who did better" and how. All that is important, as far as an encyclopedia--even one as broad as the WIkipedia is concerend--are peaks, unless the song did something very, very unusual during its chart run. The rest of the information is simply overinformation. --FuriousFreddy 16:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. All article should be formatted exactly the same way.
  2. I disagree with everything you typed. Combining tables makes the article look messy and unorganized, whereas when they are separate, it is clearer, and vision-friendly. Now, the thing about the chart trajectory heavily offends me. There is a reason chart trajectories are being added. For one, they indicate how well the song ran on a specific chart. This shows if the song had a bad beginning on the charts, but then did well or vice versa, etcetra. Also, this is indeed an encyclopedia—perhaps someone wants the chart trajectory, and if they are all on Wikipedia, it makes it easier for them to explore the web, staying within Wiki boundaries. This is useful to others. Finally, it's an encyclopedia, again. If it's about a song, the chart trajectory is acceptable, since it has to do with the single. --Winnermario 21:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Most other song related stubs I've seen do not print lyrics- do we need to here? I understand the song is personal to her, and the lyrics illustrate this point, but every verse is surely a little much? If the concensus is to retain them, they need formatting- perhaps indenting?

EvocativeIntrigue 21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Everyone says the lyrics are personal to her and she wrote the song. I have heard this song years ago. I believe in the early 90s. I know it was definitely before Kelly Clarkson was popular. I have searched for the singer, but haven't had any luck yet. At the time the song wasn't a huge hit. Just a little popular. Does anyone know who it is that I'm thinking of? When I first heard Mrs. Clarkson sing this song, I thought she had just done a re-make of it. I didn't know that she says she wrote it. It was sort of a pop song. But it had a lot more power behind it than what I've heard from Kelly Clarkson. If I am mistaken on this, I do apologize. But, I wish someone would really check on that. There has to be some record of it some where. Thanks. Gracie30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.2.79 (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia...

Is it necessary to go off on a tagent about Carrie Underwood and Guy Sebastian?

Yes! I mean, no. Not here, anyway. Stevage 08:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • For the benefit of future editors who come across this, I can't see any YouTube links now as of 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC). (Actually, I can't see any YouTube links as of November 9, 2006 either, so maybe the links were removed before then, heh.) Anyway, all seems to be well now. --Ciaran H 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BTHE.jpg

Image:BTHE.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Because of You" still a current single?

I doubt that this song should be considered a current single still. Released in 2005, the song hardly appears on the radio anymore than a song that isn't a current single. I think that it's appropriate to remove the current single template. Thoughts?   •Silver•   Talk | Contribs 22:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Reba/Kelly version is currently on the charts, so yes, it's a current single. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)