Talk:We Belong Together/Archive 2

message: Links such as 2005 MTV Video Music Awards (which was typed in as 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading piped links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redundancies removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yep, he might, if he's not too busy. Oran e  (t) (c) (e) 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I have Microsoft Excel. CG 15:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart trajectories?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Zealand Chart: #2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  UK chart performance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  MSN video premiere 

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

text: I don't understand what you mean. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyking: there are already articles about music videos themselves :P :Category:Music videos -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 16:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, I had no idea. That's cool, thanks. Everyking 17:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subarticles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: FAC restart

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks for the extra details - the information about Loverboy makes it all clearer. FreplySpang (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. I've rewritten the sentence again to avoid sloppy English. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free downloads controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: *This has been addressed significantly. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Completed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Trimmed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC nomination