Talk:Let Me Hold You

message: The meat of this article, as it stands, is a detailed analysis of its chart positioning.  I don't think that serves the reader well; it is unlikely to be what a reader comes to a Wikipedia article looking for.  In thinking about how to expand this article, I would encourage including:
* Information on the relationship between Bow Wow and Omarion.  How did they come to work together?  What contributions did each artist make?
* A discussion of the song's themes, but in a version that is properly referenced and doesn't contain speculation, value judgments, or personal reactions.  Comparison to earlier songs should link to those songs that have articles, or be footnotes.
* Recording information.  Where was the song recorded?  I cut the adjective "sped-up" for being informal prose, but there definitely should be some detail on the use of the sample.  Has the song somehow escaped being remixed? Jkelly 18:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From my personal experience, I have spoken to users who have praised the chart analysis of the article, so I dont think that needs to be removed, but I agree with you on your points and I will be looking for more information to add to those points if I can. OmegaWikipedia 18:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard, from many people, the exact opposite, especially from people who only read articles and don't edit (that is, the target audience). Chart analysis is a problem when it exists as the meat of an article, or as its largest section. An encyclopedia article on a song should establish notability beyond details of numbers. --FuriousFreddy 20:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on expansion

message: This is getting better, but there are still a few problems (some minor, some not as minor). I am not going to edit the article; I will instead post the changes I would have made here.
*The year the single came out needs to be in the first sentence of the article. The record label should be mentioned somewhere in the header as well. Omarion should not be mentioned in parentheticals (it is probably best to state in the opening sentence that the song is "a single by Bow Wow featuring Omarion" in the header, and move the information about it being the first single fro mthe fourth album to either a semicolon seperated section of the sentence or to a new second sentence.
:Disagree, especially when singles crossover years. The record label? Why? Whether Bow Wow was on Columbia Records or not is not important in the header here. The emphasis on Bow Wow is to keep a consistent format between articles. I think the header is fine the way it is.
*Omarion is an R&B singer, and B2K is properly termed either an "R&B group" or a "boy band" (calling them a band is probably not correct, because they do not play instruments).
*This is probably more the fault of Wikipedia's markup than anything, but the level two headers make the article hard to read; they disrupt the flow. It would probably be better to seperate the article as it stands now, especially because it is so short, into two level-two sections: one on the record (I have no idea what to call it), and one marked "chart performance". Reduce the other headings to level thre, so that there is not a large rule running across pages, seperating sections that are supposed to flow together while reading.
*Why are "#1" positions bolded? Is there any neutral-point-of-view reasoning that can be given for why this is done?
::It can help us see what charts the single hit #1 on. Just like articles on Olympians have the gold medel emphasized in their singlebox. 
:::Please sign your posts. If someone needs a bold font to be able to read "#1", then there is a problem with either their eyesight or their literacy. I don't see any Olympians with gold medals emphasized in their infobox; please provide a link. Reguardless, that justification still isn't a neutral point of view (a quick glance at the Olympics articles show those too have NPOV problems--"an amazing record?"). --FuriousFreddy 02:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See, Freddy, you said youre in the music industry right? Surely, you know the difference between Pop 100 Airplay and Top 40 Mainstream, and it really doesnt make sense for you to keep the one and not the other. Someone complained about including the R&B chart. To avoid any bias, it any makes sense to include them allOmegaWikipedia 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What that means is, we can't dump all the information we can find into an article. Article quality standards are against a third or more of an article being made up of lists, unlessthe article is itself specifically supposed to be a list. Therefore, something needs to be done, and it doesn't make sense for articles to list so many chart positions. Yes, I know the difference between Pop 100 Airplay, and Mainstream Top 40, but in reguards to writing an encyclopedia article on a song, neither of them are important enough that they have to be included. And there is no reason for anyone to object ot the inclusion of the R&B chart, especially in reference to black artists, as the chart shows how hip hop and R&B songs perform in their primary market. --FuriousFreddy 02:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you support Mainstream Top 40? I've heard people before argue against including the R&B chart before as it is predominately an Africian Americian chart and could be seen as discriamtion in a sense. I dont agree with this either, and our best bet is to include all the Billboard charts, as they are all national charts. Everyone has a different opinion. While some people think R&B is irrelevant, some people like you think Airplay is irrelevant. OmegaWikipedia 02:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with everything you said about the lead.  I was the one that labelled Omarion a pop music singer, since that is what is in the lead in the article about him.  I never notice the bolding of "#1", but it is actually a problem, because Wp's search function gives extra weight to articles that have the search term bolded.  That is why we use bolding for variants on the article title.  We shouldn't bold for emphasis.  It is nice to think of Wikidata being able to hold charts for everything, but it doesn't yet exist, so what charts to include is going to continue to be a contentious problem.  In all honesty, I don't think I have ever wondered to myself "What chart position did this song reach?" when thinking about a song, but I suppose that it is in some way encyclopedic.  At the very least it is verifiable.  Jkelly 23:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chart positions are indeed important, but there needs to be some sort of cut-off in their use. Articles on songs don't appear notable if their content is made up completely or almost of chart performance data. --FuriousFreddy 02:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued comments for improvement. 

message: When I search wikipedia for "Puppy Love" the only musical result is a redlink for a Donny Osmond song.  I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this isn't a cover of that song, right?  Jkelly 02:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Puppy Love" came out in about 2002 or so. Bow Wow was still a young teenager, and he was still on SoSo Def, when the record came out. It's not a cover of the Donny Osmond song. I'm sure Jermaine Dupri wrote and produced it, and I beleive Jagged Edge has a guest appearance. There's probably not an article for it here. A Google search will quickly find you the lyrics, but beware of popups. --FuriousFreddy 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ad warning, but I was lucky enough to find the lyrics at kiwilyrics.  Jkelly 03:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other songs for comparison 

message: I'm tempted to refactor this page and archive it.  This entire conversation is from one day, right?  In any case, I was quite serious above when I suggested that an article should be written on composite charts.  Since I've already mentioned that I neither know much about composite charts nor am particularly interested in charts in general, I'm probably not the person to do it.  It's my impression, however, that neither of those things are true for either FuriousFreddy or OmegaWikipedia.  If that article, which I do volunteer to copyedit, were given as much attention as the above back-and-forth, we could be putting it up for Wikipedia:Peer review soon.  Jkelly 04:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... there is an article called Composite chart.  It's an oddly-formatted one on astrology.  That's not helpful.  What I meant was Component chart, as above. Jkelly 04:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't really see the neccessity for a seperate article. Music charts is all three paragraphs long and could use some information. Oh, and that sort of conversation up there will never happen again. Trust me on this. --FuriousFreddy 04:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're quite right.  Music chart is not long enough to split off into any kind of seperate article.  We can write component chart as a section and link to it with Music chart#Component charts.  I just moved it to Music chart instead of Music charts, btw.  Jkelly 17:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Component charts 

message: :Image:Let Me Hold You.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 this Wikipedia article 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 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Let Me Hold You.jpg

message: :Image:Let Me Hold You.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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Let Me Hold You.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Let Me Hold You. 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/20131023115955/http://fdr.com.ua/compilation/U/25/ to http://fdr.com.ua/compilation/U/25/
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) 15:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified