Talk:We Belong Together

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the We Belong Together article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is part of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, an ongoing effort to improve articles related to rhythm and blues, soul music, and their related cultures. The goal of the project is to bring this article, along with all others to featured status. If you have any questions, concerns or wish to participate you can visit the main project page here.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Good article We Belong Together has been listed as one of the Arts good articles 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 reassessment.
We Belong Together is chosen to become one of the random selected articles on the R&B and Soul Music Portal. A selected article should be R&B and Soul Music-related, well-written and interesting. Featured, A-class and GA class are considered well-written. If you can update or improve this article, please do. If you support or oppose this nomination, please leave comments
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.
Former discussions
Talk Archive 1: May 2005 — March 2006
Talk Archive 2: March — May 2006

|

Contents

[edit] My suggestion

If I was going to make a suggestion—and this is from someone whose main grumble about this article is that it's too succinct—I'd say expand the content into subarticles and get each subarticle up to optimal quality, and then work backwards, in a sense, by filling the main article with summaries of what was produced in the subarticles. By narrowing things down, it becomes easier to produce a quality product in each individual case, and ultimately the individual cases can also produce a quality integrated version. I think it would be a promising approach, anyway, to get a series of articles related to this up to FA quality, culminating in this main article going to FAC, instead of making this alone the beginning and the end of the whole thing—that certainly hasn't worked well so far. Everyking 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. But:
  1. User:Eternal Equinox has "temporarily" left Wikipedia;
  2. I am far too busy; exams are coming up, and I have no time whatsoever. (We were the two primary editors)
Wanna dive in? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
EE's contribs seem to say he hasn't. But alltogether I'd say that it's a bad idea... individual songs should not have subarticles... maybe for the video if it's paticularly epic (I'm thinking Thriller level here). This is actually a very good article as it stands. My only content oppose, the graph, has been addressed, and once the appropriate amount of time has passed on the nom (wait a month since the last one was pulled) I'll support. Untill then, I'd say just put the article into a holding pattern guys. -Mask 23:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Oh, I'm still editing, but not as frequently as before. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New material

I would prefer it if the sound sample was not included twice in the "music and structure" section. This does not appear particularly necessary since the box is already provided. I believe it should be left out of the image. Also, Journalist, the material concerning the song being nostaglic towards 1970s/1980s R&B songs requires a reference. I must apologize for one edit I made, which I find regrettable, but suddenly I cannot remember what it was. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not the same sample; another was uploaded. While the sample in the box is of the reference to the other two songs, the one in the image is of the song's climax, and goes hand in hand with what the picture is proving (desperation etc). Also, I understand the retro thing. However, the topic sentence of the paragraph reads that the song was influenced by several genres. We can't just mention hip-hop and ignore mention of any other genres; we should mention the 80s retro influence (which would also make the article consistent —retro was mentioned in the lead). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware that two samples were uploaded, all right then, of course both are acceptable. But is there a reference for the 80s influence? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Not very explicitly. However, there is mention of the retro sound here (when people say "retro music", they are usually talking about 80s music, right?) Maybe it could suffice? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
We should use that reference, just in case. In addition, I believe the remix section should be situated beneath the music and strucutre area — although they were recorded with different people at seperate periods in time, the content deals with the music more than the chart performance, from my perspective. Perhaps it should be placed beneath above "free downloads controversy"? I'll conduct this edit and you tell me what you think. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say no. It puts it under the broader heading of "chart performance", which is not what it is essentially about.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
We can't just have it hanging in mid-air. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. How about under music and structure, with a distinctive heading (not a sub heading)? Try it and lets have a look. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
How about this picture as a substitute for the one in "music video"? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
We can supply the image in the music video section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I placed "remixes" after music video because it doesnt read well after the music section. While it does deal with music, you find that because it was done after the music video, and came after the song's release, its inclusion there gives the article a more chronological read. Additionally, because the last section deals with their chart performance, it sorta gives an introduction to the "chart performance" section. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. Just to let you know that "critical apparaisal" sounded too... formal. I've removed it and changed it back to "response". —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Take care of We Belong Together for me now. Bye.

[edit] Intro

"The song was primarily composed and written by Carey, Jermaine Dupri, Manuel Seal and Johnta Austin (though as many as ten songwriters are credited) through additional studio sessions after Carey had initially completed the album." 1) What album? this is the 2nd sentence, and no album has been mentioned 2) This sentence is ambiguous; did Carey et al write the song after the rest of the album was done, or did Dupri, Seal, Austin and the other unnamed writers put it together after Carey did her part? FreplySpang 02:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "it peaked at number-one in several countries"

From the second paragraph...by my count from the Chart section, it peaked at number one in exactly 3 countries. I suppose "several" is ok, but perhaps "three" is better? thoughts? Seems weasle-ish... Lunch with Jason 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It reached number-one in four countries (that I know of) and the United World Singles Chart. I believe that "several" is fine. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The "Charts" section lists the US, Brazil and Australia as the countries it topped the chart in. Perhaps if there's a fourth country, then that should be added. Lunch with Jason 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, topping the United World Singles Chart doesn't back up the "several countries" claim.Lunch with Jason 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe it was the South African singles chart. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing and recording

A few more remarks: Most of this material seems more relevant to the article about the album. Sentences like "However, "It's Like That" and "We Belong Together" were still not composed," show that the paragraph just isn't about "We Belong Together." The background info should be summarized for this article.

  • Hm, I'm not quite sure how to summarize this. Do you have any suggestions? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to explain why "We Belong Together" is a "universal love anthem" if you want to use that phrase.

"Once the studio session was complete,.... confident that the album was complete," sounds repetitious.

Also, "The composers experienced a lengthy discussion" is an odd phrasing. Maybe it would be better to say "Carey and Dupri discussed the melody at length," or words to that effect. I don't think that's quite the sense that the original phrase is trying to convey, though. FreplySpang 19:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You might be right. I'm going to certainly correct the third and fourth examples, but I don't understand why the second example requires elaboration. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying the song is a "universal love anthem" or are you quoting a critic? If it's your idea, it needs explanation and support. If it's from a critic, it needs explicit sourcing. Something like "...'We Belong Together,' termed a 'universal love ballad' by Joe Critic." In the latter case, more explanation would still be good - I don't understand what's universal about it. FreplySpang 22:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've given a full source; Carey was the critic. What other portions of the article require repooting? (I've become pretty lousy at this.) —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] specific version

There are other articles and other songs with this title. Search WP for those words (if search is working). It's only fair not to be so possessive about this title. As an Encyclopedia, the title should have (2005). (Hi Mariah.) George Slivinsky 10:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that other works have this name. The Robert and Johnny classic comes to mind (in fact, to me, it is the most prominent work); however, given the large amount of incoming links to this article, I would consider using disambiguation templates on this one rather than a move page, or perhaps even setting up a disambiguation page. Alternatively, you could take it to Wikipedia:Requested Moves. That's a good way to gain consensus for controversial page moving. GassyGuy 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DID WBT SELL 5 MILLION???

Did WBT sold 5 million or what. Most sources say 4-5 million. By adding certifications you have 4.76 million but of course these certifications are not exact sales. Sales could be higher or lower from what a certificate represents. Sooooooooo WBT has sold 4.5 - 5.5 million worldwide. Anybody agrees?!? answer please...

--Scary Boo 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

The chords sound alot like Rick James' "Hollywood"?? anyone else notice similarities. 72.83.236.53 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Edit

ive removed "It smells.". funny but pov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.68.56 (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics?

Should the lyrics really be included in the article itself? I've never seen this before with articles on other songs. Perhaps it would be better to add an external link to [1] or [2]? Cheers. Alloranleon (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Exact same thought just occurred to me -- looks like a pretty clear case of copyright violation, and I'm not sure the links are good inclusions either (since most song lyric sites are also grey-area at best when it comes to copyright). I'm going to go ahead and delete the lyrics themselves, but whether the links should be included probably merits further discussion. Gusworld (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Lyrics aren't needed.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Is there an image for use on the R&B and Soul Music Portal which is not a fair use image? SriMesh | talk 22:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)