Talk:We Belong Together/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Actually, I thought Say Something was the next single? OmegaWikipedia 21:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Singles sales

Where is it on the single sales chart? Ultimate Star Wars Freak 11:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's actually not on the sales chart. The sales charts are used only for physical singles, and WBT doesnt have one OmegaWikipedia 16:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-- Actually - We Belong Together WAS released as a 12" single. Due to the shockingly low amount of singles sold at the moment (Hung Up, by Madonna, has been at #1 with a proper CD single but with sales of only about 25,000 in over 2 months at #1) it has consistently floated around the top 40 of the Singles Sales chart with only a 12" since May 2005. In January 2006 it reached a new peak of #16.

Wow

The article on this one single is now longer than the articles for a number of nations of the world! Wasted Time R 21:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Comprehensive chart detail

what different between two version of these??
the old style is easier to read than another, isn't it

Old Style

"We Belong Together" Debuted at #81 on The Billboard Hot 100
"We Belong Together" Was Ranked #TBA on The Billboard Hot 100 Year End Charts (2005)
"We Belong Together" Remained in The Billboard Hot 100 for 17+ weeks

"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 16th #1 single on The Billboard Hot 100 (the most for a female artist)
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 11th #1 single on The Billboard Hot 100 Airplay
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 1st #1 single on The Billboard Pop 100
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 1st #1 single on The Billboard Pop 100 Airplay
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 9th #1 single on The Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks

"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 6th #1 single on The Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Airplay
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 10th #1 single on The Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 5th #1 single on The Billboard Mainstream Top 40 (the most for any artist at that format)
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 6th #1 single on The Billboard Rhythmic Top 40
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's ??? #1 single on The Billboard Adult R&B
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 1st #1 single on The Billboard Hot Ringtones
"We Belong Totgether" was Mariah's ??? #1 single on The Billboard Hot Videoclips

Current

"We Belong Together" entered the Billboard Hot 100 at eighty-one, and has stayed in the chart for over eighteen weeks.

"We Belong Together" was Carey's sixteenth number-one single on the Billboard Hot 100 (the most for a female artist), her eleventh on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, first on the Billboard Pop 100, first on the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay, ninth on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks, sixth on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Airplay, tenth on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play, fifth on the Billboard Mainstream Top 40 (the most for any artist at that format), sixth on the Billboard Rhythmic Top 40, and her first on the Billboard Hot Ringtones.

Yeah, that old style is better. It's just that a somebody seems to be screwing around with the charts.

We're an encyclopædia, not a book of lists; text is preferable to lists, especially when the lists are repetitive, involve fan-gush use of Christian names and unnecessary and non-standard abbreviations. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The old style is much, much easier to read. And also, converting chart statistics like #81 into numerals is ridiculous especially when the Wikipedia:Manuel of Style states: "Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article." For chart stastics or any type of statistics, numerals obviously make more sense, so why are they being changed to words when it is not even a Wikipedia guideline?? --Musicpvm 16:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The number issue is a minor part of it (though outside Wikipedia, all the style manuals that I have recommend spelling out numbers under 100 except in tables). The use of "#" is not Wikipedia standard. I've discussed this at the MoS pages; if an abbreviation is needed (and we avoid them were possible), we use "no" (or "no." in U.S. English). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Mel, the MOS even says we can use numerals spelled out. What more do you want? OmegaWikipedia 06:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I want the article to read well, not like a music magazine's chart pages. I've given my reasons; if all you can do is cite the MoS's permission, when many of your other edits violate its definite strictures (not to mention being inconsistent with each other), then your position is too weak to prevail. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You want the article to read well? So do I, but guess what? It looks like a hot mess, when you put it like that! Everyone has complained about it, even the people on this page, and everyone thinks it's like so much better in the old style. And you better believe my argument is strong, pal. Cause if you won't follow the rules, which you campaign so furiously for, why should we? What it all boils down to is a debate over style. (and you bring up the rules when they work to your advantage and then pretend they don't exist, when they don't) OmegaWikipedia 23:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedias have charts and lists and factoids. A basic rule in English writing is that you spell out numbers under 10, not 100. A big convoluted mess of words does not read well. Also, Mel's butchering has caused gross capitalization inconsistencies between all of Ms. Carey's articles, and these leave me disheartened. Musiclover 17:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
That isn't a basic rule in English writing; I have a number of printing and writing manuals, all of which say that numbers under 100 should be written out. That I've properly capitalised only some of the articles is because, fiorst, I'm only human, and secondly, a bunch of editors have been reverting my changes wholesale, clearly against the Wikipedia Manual of style. If you want the capitalisation to be consistent, read the MoS, and help me. Other things also need doing; for example, the pop-music articles are full of fan-gush and low-level music-journalist language, the use of their subjects' Christian names, badly formed internal links, etc. I could do with help on all those things. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I see your point. I've already started tidying up some of the other singles in her chronology. Musiclover 10:50, 18 August 2005
Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Since this is the number one song in the U.S. presently, I think it would be better if the article wasn't protected. The revert war seems to be fairly low-level, as they go, so I don't see the necessity. Everyking 05:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, Everyking, I'll unprotect. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
When will the article be unprotected again? It has just become the longest running #1 single of the 2000s in the U.S., so there are many chart updates and other things that need to be added to the article. --Musicpvm 03:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Please unprotect the article!!! It needed to be update!!!
I don't know why it was protected to begin with, but I'll unprotect anyway. Everyking 10:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
James, I just noticed that you unprotected this page shortly after I protected it. Please don't do that again, particularly not if you go on to edit it yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
No, I think I will do it again if it needs to be done. Moreover, three days had passed since the protection. That isn't "shortly after" unless we're going on cosmic time or something. Everyking 03:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I left a note on your talk page apologizing, as I read it as having been locked and unlocked on the same day. I'd still appreciate a note, just as a matter of courtesy, before you unlock in future, but you're right that three days isn't "shortly." I'm sorry for not reading the history more carefully. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Numbers need to be spelled out as numbers

Mel, we know you have tons of manuals that like to say that numbers should be spelt and whatnot, but the point is that the Wikipedia manual says

"Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article."

Please start following the rules, even the ones you dont like. Thanks OmegaWikipedia 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. The edits that I reverted involved reinserted an over-long and unnecessarily detailed description of a video that has tangential relevance to the article, and you removed the correct formatting of a number of dates.
  2. You're again insisting on the unnecessary, ugly, and non-standard abbreviation "#", which does go against the MoS. Moreover, all the editors who have been innvolbed in this debate have agreed that, at the very least, numbers under ten should be spelt out. I've given my reasons for preferring numbers under 100 to be so treated; you've offered nothing, merely changed it over and over again.
  3. Insisting on something because it's demanded by the MoS is one thing; why are you insisting on it because it's merely allowed by the MoS?
  4. While you've been away from these articles, for whatever reason, things have been fine; editors have added or up-dated information, there have been no arguments or tensions — now you're bulling in and starting it all again, for no reason that I can see.
  5. Note, incidentally, that I dodn't revert wholesale; I carefully kept those edits that added or corrected information, as I've done again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 05:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Omega, the reverting needs to stop. I'm not familiar with the style of writing normally used in these articles, so perhaps some gushing is acceptable, but it goes too far here even for the genre, e.g. "Against the music of the Pussycat Dolls' "Don't Cha" and in a provocative swimsuit, Longoria praised Mariah as she stated ..." followed by a quote from someone paying homage to the god that is Mariah Carey. We're supposed to write articles in a disinterested tone. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Slim, I agree, Mel isn't following to the compromise we agreed to on your page. And Slim, that part is not meant to praise her at all, but just to include Eva's spoken introduction. But I can see where you're coming from. How's this? OmegaWikipedia 23:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that's better, thank you. I suppose I still find it a bit odd to include all of a person's introduction, a bit like the Washington Post quoting a White House spokesperson saying to the press corps: "And here to answer questions for three minutes is George W. Bush, the president of the United States. Please state your name and news organization before you speak." But I won't quibble. ;-)
I forget what the compromise was that you reached on numbers. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Omega or Mel, what was the compromise that was reached over numbers? Regarding the # sign, I think perhaps Mel objects to this because it's not used in the UK, and possibly not outside Canada and the U.S., though I'm not sure of that. In the UK, people would normally write No. 1 instead of # 1. Perhaps we could check a British music magazine and an American one to see how they handle numbers. I can think of NME and Melody Maker. I don't know what the U.S. equivalents are. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Slim, sorry for the late reply. I'm not sure if theres an equivalent to those magazines, but its not uncommon to see the # notation in the USA like at the Rick Dees Top 40 Countdown [1] OmegaWikipedia 08:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
It would be too bad if there was in fact a compromise, because otherwise this is an excellent candidate for being one of the lamest edit wars ever. Wasted Time R 23:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

My objection is partly that "#" isn't a standard abbreviation in any country (see MoS Talk discussion, where it was pointed out that it's used in the military, and in one or two other contexts, but the standard abbreviation in North America is "No."; it's "No" in the U.K., incidentally), but mainly that we should avoid abbreviations except in tables (again, see MoS). Actually, most of its occurrences in these articles are pointless (we don't feel the need in other articles to constantly tell readers that five is a number). Whether music journalists habitually use "#3" and the like isn't relevant, though; the MoS is Wikipedia's style manual, and isn't overridden by styles used by other publications (we don't, for example, use the "Oxford comma" in articles about OUP books, and drop it for other British publishers).

We should avoid abbreviations, I agree, but this is not one of those cases. If we're talking about styles from other publications, why in the world do you keep bringing up your collection of style guides?! Please try to not be so hypocritical in your responses

The basic situation is this. I'm making two kinds of edit: those that put into effect the strictures of the MoS, and those that are allowed by the MoS, and which I believe (and have given my reasons for believing) read much better. OmegaWikipedia is reverting both kinds. He's gradually stopped reverting some of them, and is leaving a lot of articles alone, but every so often comes back for another go. When my edits enforce MoS strictures, he simply ignores that fact; when they're of the other kind, he brandishes the MoS, treating what it says can be done as if it were what must be done.

The article reads better with my edits. Your edits makes it looks like a mess than no one can read.

No compromise was reached on numbers (except that I stopped converting numerals for the "weeks" section in some of the tables), as OmegaWikipedia simply reverts all numbers to numerals, including ordinals.

Mel, you always do this. You get a third person to mediate, and then refuse to accept anything comes out of it unless you get everything you want.

He disappeared from these articles for a few days, and things went well; a number of editors interacted civilly and pleasantly, and consensus editing started. Now he's suddenlt reappeared, and confrontation is again the order of the day. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop twisting the facts, Mel. The article was fine, before you came. The only type of confrontation that has ever arose was when you started editing this article. And I was not the only one who complained (see the talk page above for instances).

And Mel, you keep saying that you don't revert info. This is the THIRD straight time you've reverted info without even looking. OmegaWikipedia 22:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Live performances

A lot can be taken from this section as obvious examples of non-NPOV writing:

There are moments in an artist's life where his or her art just clicks, everything falls into place and a work or performance exceeds what they are normally capable of.

As Carey was in the prime of her comeback, she was invited to perform at Live 8.

I may do necessary adjustments by myself afterwards, though.

The main Mariah Carey article is reasonably NPOV. Once you get into the individual singles articles, the list of achievements articles, etc., the fan-gush gets heavy. Don't bother trying to work on just this one unless you're willing to tackle the whole lot. Wasted Time R 18:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to make it clear that I'm in no way a fan of Mariah Carey; just somehow stumbled upon this article. :-) --claviola (talk to me) 20:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
It's ok, you're not risking public embarrassment by reading and commenting on this article :-) Even many Mariah-dislikers acknowledge that "We Belong Together" is an excellent record (mainly because she changed her singing style for it). Wasted Time R 20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
That was a sarcastic writing so I removed it, Wasted, but the new version is cool too. OmegaWikipedia 20:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Chart performance

Let's be honest; this session could be greatly reduced. There's so much meaningless detail on those chart jumps that it just doesn't read like an encyclopedia article to me. --claviola (talk to me) 18:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The Mariah articles seem to be intended as a dedicated reference work, rather than an encyclopedic overview. So given that, the level of detail is appropriate. Wasted Time R 18:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Given all the records that WBT has broken, I dont find it inappropriate at all. It's not meaningless and if any other song had performed like that, their info should be added to. OmegaWikipedia 20:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The section does not need to be reduced at all. --Musicpvm 21:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Too detailed

I can see the effort that has gone into this article, but sorry, I think that it's way too detailed. For example (one of many), I don't think we need a blow-by-blow description of Carey's performance of "We Belong Together" at the MTV Video Music Awards. Also disappointing is the fact that the article has a severe POV slant in favour of Carey; every time the song loses an award or fails to break a record, the resulting statement is essentially "The song lost this award, but [unidentified] critics felt that the winner did not deserve it" and "Well, it lost its number one position, but it's only because of such-and-such". What other song article on Wikipedia (Carey songs excluded) has this much detail and fancruft? It's difficult to see the forest for the trees here. Extraordinary Machine 17:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes there was a lot of fancruft, but that was the collosal glory of it. 45K for just one song! There was nothing else like it on WP, and now you're taking it away ... Wasted Time R 20:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
EM, the article is fine. I don't see why there's a problem with that live performance. It was a very complicated setup, its not like she stoof there in front of a stage with a microphone. OmegaWikipedia 21:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
EM, Ok, I agree with some of your edits, but there was no reason to use a new singlebox which you just created today. The Part about WBT being a hit in the teen market is important too and needs context, because songs that usually are hits on Pop radio usually dont become hits on Adult R&B and A/C and TRL. The song has crossed multiple format and needs context. OmegaWikipedia 21:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
OM, I feel your partial revert was, quite frankly, uncalled for, for the following reasons:
  1. The infobox. The note about which album the single came from should be highlighted in yellow, as it is on the original single infobox, which I have modelled the new one I made on. Using the word "Director" instead of "Music video director" will be confusing to readers...director of what? The recording studio? The orchestra? Chart positions should be in their own section of the infobox, and should be in order of the single's position, as detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Years of songs should be inserted in parentheses. The whole point of me creating a new single infobox was because so many single articles on Wikipedia, especially Mariah Carey's, look messy if the syntax isn't right, and are inconsistent with articles that actually do use the original single infobox.
  1. The new singlebox looks like a hot mess, I'm sorry, and is confusing. I think it was uncalled for of you in the first place to even remove it.
  1. Writing the numbers as words instead of digits makes the text read better, I think. For example, compare "16th #1" with "sixteenth #1".
  1. 16th #1 looks more clear to me, than sixteenth #1.
  1. Wikilinking. What is the point of linking to The Emancipation of Mimi right after the lead section, when it had been linked there? Or "One Sweet Day" being linked twice in the same section?
  2. Spelling and grammar mistakes. Take a closer look at your revert: "Not surpsingly" and "It was not able to break the record the record" are just two examples.
  3. Prose. What sounds better: "The song became Carey's first #1 single in five years, and has broken numerous chart records; its strong radio airplay enabled it to become the first song to cross the 200 million audience impression barrier", or "The song is also remembered for the numerous records it broke on the charts especially with respect to its record breaking airplay in which it became the first song to cross the 200 million audience impression barrier"? Again, just one of several examples.
  4. POV. Please stop adding back in "excuses" for the American Idol winner making it to number one for a week or Kanye West taking the top spot away from the song recently or Alicia Keys winning a video award. This type of opinionated and unsupported writing may be suitable for a Carey fansite, but not Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 22:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. Excuses? First of all, I didn't write these sections, I know. The Keys section was taken from the main article nor did I write the Kanye section. If you want to tone it down, please do, but dont ruin the article
I'm sorry, but I just don't feel like wading through lines of syntax to make a minor correction to the infobox. The new infobox template (which follows the WikiProject Song guidelines, unlike the previous version) is far sleeker and simpler to edit. I'm not trying to "ruin" the article, just being bold and making it read less like a fan essay and more like an encyclopedia article. Extraordinary Machine 23:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Melismatic

her trademark über-melismatic attack...

Is that even a word? --claviola (talk to me) 22:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I am astounded at the sentence (and the prefix), and Byzantine music scholars everywhere are turning in their graves, but "melismatic" is indeed a word. Jkelly 02:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Melismatic" is a word of course (though it can't sensibly be applied to "attack"), but "über-melismatic" isn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"über" just serves as a modifier. It's no different than saying, "ultra-melismatic". 18:17, 22 January 2006

Cleanup tag

I realise that not every single spends fourteen weeks at the top of the U.S. charts, or breaks radio airplay records. However, fourteen paragraphs dedicated to chronicling the single's chart performance is rather overexcessive. The music video and live performances sections could also do with trimming, as could the "tracker" tables. Also, the comprehensive charts and remixes lists and the Billboard Hot 100 trajectory are probably only going to be of interest to fans of Carey and this song. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues. Extraordinary Machine 20:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That RfC is a load of horsecrap. Also, the article is going to stay the way it is. If there is all of this information that can be added, why the hell not add it? That's why this place is called an encyclopedia. Sorry, EM. I strongly disagree with you. --Winnermario 01:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
If you think that the RfC is a load of horsecrap, perhaps you could respond to it accordingly. (The last time I looked, there was no response.) Even if we grant that this chart stuff is information (and not merely blather), one possible reason not to add it is that it's too trivial; encyclopedias are not undiscriminating accumulations of trivia. Of course, you're free to demonstrate that it is not trivial but instead is important. -- Hoary 01:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I can see some truth to Em's concerns. I thought that the article delves into the unnecessary (live tracker etc). However, I disagree with him that only Carey fans would find the info interesting. This song as not only spent 14 weeks on Billboard, it has also broken many other chart records, becoming the biggest song this decade, and at present, the article comprehensively documents these accomplishments. I really dont consider any section of "Chart Performance" trivial and superfluous, but I agree that the article could be more succinct. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Please consider Wikipedia:Article_size. The article is at 36kb as of now. Jkelly 04:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Very true. But while I might take this as yet another reason to cut all the blather about "chart performance" -- I mean, it sold lots of copies and made a bundle; nuff said -- others may take it as a reason to expand this to "fuller" (even more obsessive) coverage in We Belong Together (chart performance), We Belong Together (controversy among chart followers), etc etc. All of which would of course be perfectly fine in some separate Careypedia somewhere. -- Hoary 05:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I find it quite astonishing that an article of this size does not refer to any sources whatsoever. I stumbled across this when I was looking for what this dubious product called the "United World Charts" was, and, well, to my disappointment there is no links or any point of reference anywhere! For all that we could know (or care for) this might all be invented by some very bored people! Hopefully most of it isn't but come on! Give us your sources! (And "soon" never means "one month" when we are talking about something that should be as easy to put together as your sources)
Chsf 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The sources and references have been included! —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)