Talk:We Belong Together/Archive 1

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: That was a sarcastic writing so I removed it, Wasted, but the new version is cool too. OmegaWikipedia 20:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree.  The section does not need to be reduced at all.  --Musicpvm 21:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live performances 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree.  The section does not need to be reduced at all.  --Musicpvm 21:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart performance 

message: her trademark über-melismatic attack...
Is that even a word? --claviola (talk to me) 22:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Melismatic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please consider Wikipedia:Article_size.  The article is at 36kb as of now.  Jkelly 04:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

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

message: "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)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Also, topping the United World Singles Chart doesn't back up the "several countries" claim.Lunch with Jason 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was the South African singles chart. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "it peaked at number-one in several countries"  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Writing and recording 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: specific version

message: 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)
thread_title:  DID WBT SELL 5 MILLION??? 

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

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

message: 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  or ? Cheers. Alloranleon (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Lyrics aren't needed.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Image

message: Why are people re-adding unreliable chart positions. Please read this before reverting again: Wikipedia:Record charts!!! Reidlos (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart peak positions

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps 

message: there's a song also named we belong together by big bang featuring bom park. isn't it one of the remixes to the original by mariah carey?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skgquidet (talk • contribs) 13:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given a remix in South Korea? 

message: 1)The song is NOT the most successful song by a female artist in history. The "source" for this statement is a dead link. According to Billboard's anniversary chart, How Do I Live By LeAnn Rimes is. Billboard Hot 100's All Time Singles
2) The song has NOT sold 8 mil ww. The link says "songs that have sold 5 mil copies worldwide since 2005". There is no support for the 8 mil figure. 75.21.87.230 (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 false statistics in the intro 

message: I think the billboard hot 100 songs of the previous decade is How Do I Live by LeAnn Rimes. Because, in the All-time list, this song placed in number 4, higher than any other songs in that decade (1990s). Smooth by Santana placed in number 2, but spent several weeks in 1999 and it was the last number one hit of the 1990s.
222.252.112.86 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procession and succession 

message: The table with the chart positions is incorrect. For example it didn't go #1 on the UK Single Chart. I don't have the correct positions at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it didn't go #1 EVERYWHERE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.130.220 (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart Positions 

message: I want to add an "All Time Chart" box. "We Belong Together" is #9 according to this link -> http://www.billboard.com/specials/hot100/charts/top100-titles-10.shtml
could you please :) and more special let me do it :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiggestLittleMonster (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its in the text, but sure, I'll add a chart :)--CallMeNathan  • Talk2Me  01:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Time Charts 

message: oh sorry nevermind i got mixed up when i checked the page again :P  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiggestLittleMonster (talk • contribs) 01:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Time Charts 

message: This article is very well written, but as I was reading through it, it does read a bit fancruft. A few examples, I don't see the need for a lengthy video synopsis in the lead and the Live performance section is SO long. I think quite a lot could be trimmed to be honest. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 05:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You think 2 small paragraphs is excessive when discussing the music video? Apologies, but I find making a 38k article on an unimaginative and critically ignored video extremely unnecessary.--CallMeNathan  • Talk2Me  08:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you taken offence to this? I don't mean anything negative or personal by it. It's just that when I read it through, there were things that stood out to me as being a bit over detailed. And with regard to We Found Love, it was far too big to be in the song article. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 14:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point. First off, no, I am not at all upset. I'm sorry if it came off that way as this was not my intention. What I'm trying to understand is how you think two small paragraphs is "overly detailed". And regarding my quip about "We Found Love", obviously I didn't think it was necessary to gather that amount of information (with its current size, no doubt it couldn't fit into the song article).--CallMeNathan  • Talk2Me  00:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on We Belong Together. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mtv.co.uk/shows/mtv-official-countdowns/episode/mariah-carey-official-top-20
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121103193544/http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2005/07/08/critics_corner/ to http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2005/07/08/critics_corner/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Mariah Carey began recording his tenth studio album "The Emancipation of Mimi"in November, 2004. At this time, the boss of the Island Records, L.A. Reid, wants Mariah Carey can cooperate with Jermaine Dupree. A few days later, Mariah Carey flew to Jermaine Dupree in Atlanta studio, began to "We Belong Together" and Jermaine Dupree's creative work, completed this work in four days. The creation of songs is different from Mariah Carey's previous songs. This time, Mariah Carey and Jermaine Dupree are to share with each other: two people were a part of the concept, the song will be completed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guojingyuql (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation background 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on We Belong Together. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108020201/http://stylusmagazine.com/reviews/mariah-carey/the-emancipation-of-mimi.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/mariah-carey/the-emancipation-of-mimi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723101658/http://newyork.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=27530&type_news=latest to http://newyork.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=27530&type_news=latest
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on We Belong Together. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_401751.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927120204/http://www.groovevolt.com/Newswires/newswire.asp?ID=1730 to http://www.groovevolt.com/Newswires/newswire.asp?ID=1730
*Added  tag to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20050001
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on We Belong Together. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521083418/http://spotlightingnews.com/article.php?news=1366 to http://www.spotlightingnews.com/article.php?news=1366
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified