Talk:We Belong Together/Archive 2

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.

Contents

Review of article

Okay, I've just taken a look at the article, and it's improved a lot! When I read it after user:Journalist's recent rewrite, it was the first time I managed to get through it in one go, without my cursor drifting towards the scroll bar. Well done! Mostly, it's now just a case of referencing these statements (or if they are already referenced, then possibly adding inline citations so that it is more obvious that they are cited), some of which could be considered POV if they aren't supported by footnotes:

  1. The song is an R&B ballad and has been noted for its quiet storm ambience, laid back piano-driven rhythm and Carey's subdued vocals.
  2. The song has now become Carey's signature song...it is also considered her comeback single following the commercial failure of the singles from Glitter (2001) and Charmbracelet (2002). - also, I thought "It's Like That" was considered her comeback single?
  3. "We Belong Together" features a blend of quiet storm ambiance, distinguished by understated, mellow dynamics and relaxed tempos and rhythms. It is noted for its romantic sentiment, subdued soulfulness and neo soul mood.
  4. Part of the song's success has been in how well these three sections capture the range of human emotions in such a situation.
  5. The change in Carey's vocal style has also contributed to the overall success of "We Belong Together".
  6. ...many critics believed that the song marked the true "return of the voice".
  7. Carey's performance of "We Belong Together" on The View helped expose the song to a daytime audience. It was after this broadcast that the song began being played on daytime-oriented Adult Contemporary radio station formats, leading to its subsequent record-breaking impressions statistics.
  8. After performing the song at Live 8 in the UK, Carey was criticized for touting "We Belong Together" as her new song to the audience in attendance; many thought this was inappropriate for such a concert.
  9. Carey was said to have lost her "radio magic" as her positions on the airplay charts slowly declined...
  10. The "Free downloads controversy" section could do with inline citations as well.

Once again, I'd like to say that I really am impressed at how much the article has improved. I'll try and give more advice on how to make it better if I think of anything else. I suggest submitting this for a second peer review, and then listing it as a featured article candidate if it is believed that the article is ready. Extraordinary Machine 23:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm just striking off each one as I deal with them. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks EM. However, most of the lines that you wanted cites for are already cited. Let me give a few examples.

  1. The change in Carey's vocal style has also contributed to the overall success of "We Belong Together". This is referenced by the quote by Dupri and by the New York Times article.
  2. the slant magazine says that its her anthem (ie signature song). It reads something like this: Like Whitney (I will Always love you) or Celine (My heat will go on), Mariah has finally found her anthem.
  3. ...many critics believed that the song marked the true "return of the voice". Slant Magazine is the referenced here.(I could find others is thats necessary)
  4. Carey was said to have lost her "radio magic" as her positions on the airplay charts slowly declined... (I think you have a source for this in the Mariah Carey article. I'll use it.)
  5. The Billboard review says a lot, calling it an "the R&B groove ballad, stellar ...." (I mostly paraphrased after reading these reviews), as does Road To The Grammys: The Story Behind Mariah Carey's 'We Belong Together' which is used as a ref.

I'll see what I can do, but most of the notes will read (Op cit). Hope thats O.k. :) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have 2 go. I'll deal with the rest tomorrow evening after work. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 01:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

All right Journalist, it took me time to retrieve the information on "We Belong Together" from my friend (who was hesitant to give it to me for some reason that is not to my knowledge), however, I've finally gotten around to posting it here. The information is as follows:
Carey had written two songs while she was returning to Atlanta: "It's Like That", and "We Belong Together". As arguably the album's most popular track, it may seem surprising that there is not much of back story behind "We Belong Together". Similar to that of "It's Like That", "We Belong Together" was based on the creativity of Carey and Jermaine. Carey has often described the song as "'Anytime You Need a Friend' meets 'Breakdown'" as the song combines the quick-style of singing of "Breakdown" with the powerful vocals of "Anytime You Need a Friend".
"We Belong Together" is not about any of Mariah's previously confirmed lovers (Tommy Mottola, Derek Jeter, or Luis Miguel). Instead, Carey feels that the song can be seen as a universal love anthem that everyone can relate to: "'We Belong Together' is my second single. . .and I feel like the end result was just a really heartfelt ballad that I think people can really relate to, even though it's like a very specific story, I think that everybody can probably apply it to their own lives."
Unfortunately, since this information is from a friend, I do not hold any references. I will attempt to search for some though, and confirm my findings in a few days. If I may make a single suggestion on what should be included in the article is the music. I am aware that finding the music online is not a simple task though, so when one nominates this article for FAC, I will not bring up its lack of musical style (that is if it actually is lacking it; perhaps you will locate it). Good luck with the article! —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I was watching a BET interview just now on the show "Setting the Record Str8", and Carey repeats some of the above comments. Ill include it and cite the show. Agree? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Misleading piped links

Links such as 2005 MTV Video Music Awards (which was typed in as [[MTV Video Music Awards|2005 MTV Video Music Awards]]) should generally be avoided, as it confusing for readers when they click it expecting to be taken to the article for the 2005 awards and are instead taken to the main MTV Video Music Awards article. It should just read "2005 MTV Video Music Awards". Extraordinary Machine 19:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already taken the time to read Wikipedia:Piped link as I've noted on Talk:Brokeback Mountain. However, I did not know that this situation is also registered as "piped"; it does not seem to mislead such as 2005 in music does when shortened to 2005. Yet if those are the rules, I dare not argue. Thank you for making the correct edits. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

The images are changing at a rapid speed. I think that there should be a few that we stick to rather than changing our minds every so often. Comments? —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry lol. I just found a site that has many screenshots, and I got carried away. I will stop now; I think I've got it. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, it is useful when one discovers a website with many screenshots. Do you care to share the URL? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I mean many screenshots of "We Belong Together". I don't see any other videos there. However, here it is: http://so-you.net/home/index.php?go=mariahgal
Yes, yes, I understand that the website contains images of "We Belong Together" — that is precisely what I was looking for! Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I have 2 log off now... my brother needs the computer :( Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's gonna be a problem, but I switched "music video" and "critical response". I think that we should deal entirely with the song and all its counterparts, then we move on to reception (both critical and commercial); It gives it a better flow. Any objections? Its not that big a deal, if this is not preferred, then it can be undone. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find it favourable, but it's not that big of a deal, so we'll leave it the way it is. Critical and commercial reception should be dealt with following the promotional aspects. Good edit! —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Image:Webelongtogether1.jpg bothers me; it is a distant screenshot and doesn't reward the article with the caption it possesses. Perhaps a different image is required? Does anyone have any suggestions or issues? —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thats true. Well, how about Image:WeBelongT.jpg? If that's still unsuitable, you could go ahead and choose one from the link I gave you. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm uncertain. Let's have a look at the images that currently stand in the article:
  1. There is the lead image (not counting the CD single in the information box) of Carey expressing her frustration during the third phase of the song. It is efficient to better-explaining the song's lyrics and its theme, so I find it acceptable to remain in the article.
  2. The second image of Carey turning to see her former beau in the distance is an excellent image and provides solid communication; this one should definitely remain in the article.
  3. The third image of Carey running away with her former beau; this one is not to my likening.
  4. The fourth image that Journalist has suggested above is a bit awkward. Do we really want to see the backside of Carey?
I'm going to look at the images located at http://so-you.net/home/index.php?go=mariahgal. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I have changed my mind. The image is acceptable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've trimmed one of them as I don't think that we can claim "fair use" on all three. Is there a picture somewhere we could use of Carey performing the song or accepting an award for it? Extraordinary Machine 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a screenshot of Carey accepting an award for "We Belong Together". Let me retrieve it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of only one screenshot where Carey is accepting an award for "We Belong Together". This link leads to the image. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I have to say that I am very proud of this article. It has come such a long way. I still have some concerns/questions however:

  1. E.E, I see that you have not crossed out anything else in the peer review (ie. chart section being cluttered) Do these concerns still stand?
  2. I'm having a bit of problem finding more citations for the "downloads controversy". The thing is, the issue was not that big. Second, the one source that is in the article practically explains everything about the controversy. Couldn't we just cite the same source a couple times?
  3. I am unable to find anything sources on the point that Carey's performances on "Oprah" etc helped in its airplay. What are we gonna do, remove these statements?
  4. Screenshots of award acceptances can be found at http://www.mariahdaily.com/photogallery/index.shtml. (You'll have to search through the large 2005 archive.) Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Those look more like professional photographs than screenshots. Regardless, we could just wait for screenshots from the impending Grammy Awards telecast to surface and then use one of those. The website www.roxcafe.org has plenty from Carey's various performances of the song as well. Extraordinary Machine 00:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Extraordinary Machine. We should wait for the Grammy Award screenshots to be released; there were several that could be featured in the article. Also, I've scratched several of my comments in the peer review that were just hanging there. By the way, just for entertainment sake, the Grammy Awards is being televised as I type. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Redundancies removed

Firstly, I have removed the introduction of Carey as a songwriter from the lead section, as it's already implied that she is a songwriter by the mention of her co-writing credit. Secondly, Category:Mariah Carey songs is a subcat of Category:Pop songs and Category:R&B songs, so their inclusion here is unnecessary.

Additionally, I removed the sub-headings from the "Formats and track listings" section as Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Structure_of_the_article states: "sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow". Extraordinary Machine 22:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, in regard to the "format and track listings" sub-headings, there are a few other articles on Wikipedia that are layed-out the same as they were here, so we will have to remove them when they are found. The categories don't have to be included in the article (I didn't quite grasp what you had meant last time, but now I do), but I believe that the term "songwriter" should be in the article because most singers are songwriters and we don't want this to turn into an awkward situation if compared to Kylie Minogue, where it would not matter since she does not write all of her songs. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Chart trajectories?

I recently looked through the history of the article and found the chart trajectories for the U.S. Hot 100 and UK Top 40. Perhaps their inclusion in the article would be notable? However, I personally do not enjoy the "trajectory template" that is displayed in a number of articles — would it be possible for an image to be created? If one chooses to follow through, it could be released to the public domain. Just a thought. Comments, suggestions? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be great. If you could make the image (I haven't the slightest idea how). I've seen something like this in the article "Cool". Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I just looked at the article and I must say that I am impressed with the image. The copyright status was what I had suggested, and its uploader, perhaps not coincidentally, had been Extraordinary Machine! I would make the image myself but unfortunately I am currently not using a computer with such programs. If this is suggested to Extraordinary Machine, perhaps he could create the graph? —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep, he might, if he's not too busy. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure now. In the words of user:FuriousFreddy: do we really need to know exactly how a song performed week-by-week on the charts, in the context of an encyclopedia article? Extraordinary Machine 23:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You enjoy pulling that phrase from your hat all of the time. Just joking. I agree with you in the case that it isn't notable when the template is positioned, but an image is acceptable. Fans of the song may want to find the chart run and use it in whatever way they desire. Otherwise, if placed in a template then I oppose this inclusion. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
If fans want to use the chart run for whatever purpose, then they can search for that information elsewhere. This is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a music or Mariah Carey fan wiki. Is there anything particularly notable about the single being at number twelve in its fourth week on the U.S. Hot 100? Or its rise to number seven the following week? That level of detail would be ridiculous in any article. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and I doubt image description pages are exempt from that. There was a request for comment regarding this issue (among others; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues) that attracted substantial support. Extraordinary Machine 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Now I understand why people are against chart trajectories. You should have pointed me in the direction of the requests for comment page earlier, but fair enough. It there was support for the "trajectories" not to be included, then there is no reason to continue arguing over the matter. No chart trajectories is fine with me. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the chart trajectory. Many song articles use it at the end of the article right next to the chart table (see Cool (song)), so it's not disruptive and it's kind of a cool illustration of the evolution of the chart performance. I would like that the chart be displayed in the article. CG 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, but I am still reluctant to accepting the terms. Do you by chance own a program that is capable of creating a line graph such as the one in Cool (song)? —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I have Microsoft Excel. CG 15:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand Chart: #2

Someone add that it was on the New Zealand singles charts peaking at number 2!! Believe me, I know, because I watch the chart show every week. Check this if you don't believe me!

http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp

I checked the week before that also, and she was at number 2 then, and before that, she was at number 17. Somebody add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.83.6 (talk • contribs)

I'm not so sure. There is an excess flow of charts as it currently stands. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The chart has been added because its trajectory was easy to retrieve from the official website. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

UK chart performance

Someone's removed the number of singles that Ghetto Gospel sold to overtake We Belong Together again, I see. The reason I originally added it back is because a gap of 392 singles between the number 1 and 2 spots is extremely small, at least in the UK. Usually the gap is at least about ten thousand. BillyH 00:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is likely that one of us removed it, either purposely or accidentally. Let us assume the latter, but we can never be too sure. As long as a citation is provided, you may re-add it to the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

MSN video premiere

The exclusive MSN online premiere of Mariah's We Belong Together video, the second single from her new album The Emancipation of Mimi was the BIGGEST video premiere MSN has ever had to date. Over 1.1 Million video streams in 10 days!

Mariah Tops the AOL Music Chart For the second week Mariah remains at the Top of the AOL Music Top 11 Song Chart with 2,974,234 Million Plays! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.100 (talk • contribs)

It depends. Do you have a source for your information? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Subarticles

This thing needs subarticles. When I read it, what jumps out at me are the limitations, the feeling that there's more info there that we aren't getting to see. In my experience, subarticles not only offer an excellent opportunity for content expansion, they help protect the content that already exists from unwarranted deletion. Also, this article can really set a standard if it gets to be featured. If this article had three subarticles, that would set a precedent for people to expect that same sort of thing from future FAs; the reverse is also true, though: if you consciously limit the article's content you help establish a precedent for lower-quality articles which can then weaken efforts at future content expansion. Just my two cents, anyway, thought I'd offer 'em after I read the article fully for the first time. Everyking 23:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That would suggest that there is enough useful information about this song to create one or more subarticles, when I don't think there is. Excess detail should be trimmed (as it already has been), not split off into subarticles. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 23:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
This is kinda what I meant by protecting the content. If it's in a subarticle, you're basically limited to an AfD nom to get rid of it, and if it survives, then you have little choice but to let the content remain. And don't cite NOT at me like I don't know what I'm talking about. Everyking 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure; does anyone else have an opinion that they would like to express? —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure either. The thing is, almost everything is exhausted in this article. This is by far the most comprehensive article on the song. I can't find any additional info. I know that for "Charts" section, we could probably write about 3 sub-articles — this song broke a lot of chart records (but then again, you can find much of the chart record in the "see also": Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey and List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia). However, the "video", "music and recording" etc are fine. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 16:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The first person to write an article on a specific music video should get a medal. An inclusionist barnstar. Everyking 05:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Everyking: there are already articles about music videos themselves :P Category:Music videos -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 16:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Ha, I had no idea. That's cool, thanks. Everyking 17:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

FAC restart

OK, so I'll start a discussion on this. The last FAC failed; what can be done to address any of the objections in preparation for another nom? Can someone who was closely following it summarize the main problems, or perceived problems? Everyking 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm really not interested in taking the article back to FAC anytime soon, especially considering that I don't even like this song very much (I worked on it only because it is notable). I've found a new article to develop. However, this one is certainly close to FA status, but I really don't know what to do to address the concerns, some of which were actionable, some of which were trivial. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be resubmitting this article one last time to FAC tomorrow. Should it fail, I will no longer be working on it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Free downloads controversy

I've taken a stab at rewriting the "Free downloads controversy" section to remove some uses of passive voice and to tighten up some run-on sentences. I reduced the emphasis on "new filters" in the process of calculating chart positions - as it was, it seemed to assume the reader already knew about the technology of chart calculations. I don't, so (of course) correct it if I explained it incorrectly. I wasn't able to straighten out the sentence "Following public statements, Carey was accused of manipulating the U.S. chart as people believed she had employed in the past," because I just didn't understand it. What public statements? By whom - Billboard or Carey? Who did the accusing? And, "employed" is a transitive verb - I assume the intention is "Carey was accused of manipulating the U.S. chart as people believed she had done on previous occasions" but I'm not entirely sure. FreplySpang (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting the paragraphs, you did a good job. I also do not know about the technology accessed while charts are being calculated, so I am unsure about what is right and what isn't. I'd assume all of your edits are correct. I'm going to correct the second portion of the pargraph of which you found to be perplexing. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra details - the information about Loverboy makes it all clearer. FreplySpang (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I've rewritten the sentence again to avoid sloppy English. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Journalist, I think we may want to keep the portion concerning the free digital downloads in the article since it explains and elaborates on Billboard correcting its filters. Does anyone second this or perhaps disagree? —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

FAC nomination

Objectionable content that must be addressed:

  • Cut down the fancruft, as per the fancruft guidelines.
  • Tsavage believes that the lead section requires work. Although I believe this has been corrected, I will conduct a quick copy-edit.
  • Tsavage believes that the critical reception needs to be more comprehensive. This is being debated.
  • I believe this has been addressed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the musical discussion is awkward and needs to be corrected to allow a flow and reads well.
  • Tsavage believes that the chart performance section is overemphasized. This has been trimmed excessively and has been completed, I think.
  • This has been addressed significantly. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the sheet music image should be removed. It is gone.
  • Completed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the free downloads controversy could do with trimming. This has been completed.
  • Trimmed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tsavage believes that the remixes should be expanded upon. This is being debated further.

—Eternal Equinox | talk 22:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)