![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What is up with the statement "became known for starting the first major dance craze of the millennium and of the internet"? Would that not have been done by Crank That (Soulja Boy) in 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.70.210 ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It's all over the internet, the receptions of the songs "IF I WERE A BOY" AND "SINGLE LADIES", i hope someone could post them here because i'm still in the process of learning how to properly edit the pages with the sources/reference. please can someone post it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlaws001 ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere in this article does it mention that it is entirely bollywood inspired, from the music itself right through to the dance moves. I don't know why its not mentioned but its extremely obvious. Could somebody with more knowledge of Knowles please find some comments filling this out and write it in. 220.245.239.93 ( talk) 04:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I posted that Single Ladies is #1 on Billboard Airplay Chart, but it keeps getting deleted. Why's that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.37.230 ( talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
And why isn't there the fact that Single Ladies is #3 on the Global Charts? http://www.mediatraffic.de/tracks.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.71.145 ( talk) 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The overall tone of this page is VERY slanted toward a promotional sort of page rather than an unbiased description of the song. I personally find the song to be repetitive and mean-spirited, and have asked others their opinion of the song as well and gotten similar feedback, but this article only covers extremely favorable viewpoints to the exclusion of all else. I feel that it needs to include more examples of why this song might be well-thought-of, rather than simple quotes that say things like "The beat, courtesy of The-Dream and Tricky Stewart, is irresistible and exuberant, the vocal hook is stormy and virtuosic."
It just seems like this article is simply trying to sell the audience on the song rather than be a simple neutral descriptor of the song. -- Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.126.241 ( talk) 10:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
If I may address a few points about the song that people seem to have a problem with. Above, Scott states that the song objectifies women by calling them an "it". But I tend to disagree with this. The line goes, "If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it." The first 'it' refers not to women, but to the relationship/what they had, and the second 'it' refers to her wedding finger/left hand (hence the point of her constantly holding up her hand and pointing to her finger). So, in essence, the lyrics mean "If you liked what we hand, then you should have put a ring on my finger". But that isn't very catchy now, is it?
Secondly, people keep saying that the song isn't about female empowerment. But it is. The song is about a woman who "cried her tears" and gave her partner "three good years", but decided that enough is enough. She is going to move on. If he wants her back, too bad, because he had his chance. Orane (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with the comment above that this song is not "empowering". Aside from the fact that history will not judge the word "empowering" kindly, ask an Afghan widow or a Somali rape victim if she finds this song "empowering". What it's basically saying is that what women want from men is a ring on the finger. Now, what's "empowering" about that? Not really about real relationships, is it? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great song, but the article itself is embarrassingly long for something so slight and I don't think it can really bear the weight that's being put on it to be "empowering". LottieP ( talk) 14:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about whether this even merits inclusion, so I'll stick it here in the talk page. There seems to be a persistent rumour that one of the dancers in the video is a man in drag or a transexual. This is not the case according to Beyonce's publicist - see this Chicago Tribune article. Manning ( talk) 09:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The single has reached 4x Platinum in the master ring tone format. See this. How do we treat this? The infobox remains 2x Platinum. Thanks. -- 203.177.74.138 ( talk) 01:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
What is the significance of the metallic glove? Why is she wearing it? Whose idea was it? What was their intention? 211.28.129.218 ( talk) 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
theory. -- 79.166.179.37 ( talk) 09:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This whole long article and it doesn't even mention these guys, whose beat is sampled throughout "Put a Ring on it", and plays alone the beginning. It's from "The Show" by Doug E. Fresh and Slick Rick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.88.225 ( talk) 22:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The article says the video was shot as a "single sequence". Does this mean the same thing as a single take? What is the source for this? There's certainly a lot of cuts, so if it really is a single take it's not inherently obvious and we could use a citation. (Didn't find anything authoritative in the first page of Googles.) -- Chinasaur ( talk) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to suggest that the J-setting dance craze is only in Atlanta, but I've noticed it in other gay clubs around the South as well. -- Ajharris78 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC).
Your Wikipedia entry for the song T'ain't_What_You_Do_(It's_the_Way_That_You_Do_It) just outright says:
The song has formed much of the rhythmical and melodic basis for a song by Beyoncé - Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It).
Come on, really?? There's no proof of that whatsoever! Not one of the song's four writers has ever mentioned anything like that, and they've been pretty forthcoming about everything to do with this song. -- Valsadie ( talk) 19:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
beyonce's had a number of new/re-entrys in the u.k r'n'b charts can someone add this?!.. link below!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/rnbsingles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.181.188 ( talk) 21:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this worth mentioning? Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The song re-entered the UK Singles chart at number 75, marking its 75th week on the chart. Interesting enough to be mentioned? Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
★Jivesh 1205★ ( talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 07:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
★Jivesh 1205★ ( talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
★Jivesh 1205★ ( talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
★Jivesh 1205★ ( talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 00:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
★Jivesh 1205★ (
talk /
♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫)
15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Jivesh 1205 ( talk) 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" was written by Beyoncé Knowles, The-Dream, Kuk Harrell and Christopher Stewart, and was produced by The-Dream and Stewart. Recorded in April 2008 at the The Boom Boom Room Studio in Burbank, California, the song was mixed by Jaycen Joshua and Dave Pensado, with assistance from Randy Urbanski and Andrew Wuepper. [1]
The-Dream conceptualized "Single Ladies" after Knowles' secret marriage to hip hop recording artist Jay-Z in April 2008. [2] [3] [2] Stewart commented that the song was "the only public statement that [Knowles and Jay-Z] ever made about marriage," [2] and that while in the studio recording the song, Knowles had remained tightlipped about her marriage, even to the point of removing her wedding band. [2] The-Dream was inspired to compose the song because it explored an issue that affected the relationships of many people: the fear or unwillingness of men to commit. [2] In an interview with Billboard, Knowles added that she was drawn to the song because of the universality of the topic, and that it was an issue that "people are passionate about and want to talk about and debate." [4] She stated that although it was a playful uptempo song, it addressed a serious issue that women went through everyday. [4]
"Single Ladies" appears on the second disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce because Knowles portrays her alter ego, Sasha Fierce, in the song. [5] Chosen to be the two lead singles from I Am... Sasha Fierce, "Single Ladies" and " If I Were a Boy" were released simultaneously to demonstrate the concept of dueling personalities of the singer. [6] This reinforced the theme of the album, which was created by placing its ballads and up-tempo tracks on separate discs. [7] The singles debuted on US radio on October 8, 2008; [8] "Single Ladies" did so on mainstream urban New York radio station Power 105.1. [9] Both singles were added to rhythmic contemporary radio playlists on October 12, 2008; [10] "Single Ladies" was also sent to urban contemporary playlists the same day, [11] while "If I Were a Boy" was instead classified for contemporary hit radio. [12] The two songs were released as a double A-side single on November 7, 2008 in Australia, [13] New Zealand, [14] and Germany. [15] Dance remixes of the song were made available in the US on February 10, 2009, [16] and in Europe on February 16, 2009. [17] "Single Ladies" was not originally released as a single in the UK; however, the song became increasingly popular there and reached the top ten in the UK Singles Chart from download sales as an album track. [18] On February 16 it was released as a CD single and the dance remixes were released by means of digital download. [19] [20]
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 12:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not done as source is not reliable (i think).
Jivesh1205 (
Talk)
11:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 18:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The article says that the video was shot in a single take ( "... only one take was used in the final cut") and for verification cites an
NPR radio review by
Andrea Seabrook. The source of "single take" statement is not a producer or choreographer (Seabrook does not interview anyone in the radio review), but the reporter herself just makes the claim. But the video clearly shows a discontinuity at 1:01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1EFMoRFvY. I'm guessing that the "single take" assertion is just puffery, repeated by eager fans. I know that
WP:Verifiability says that the standard is "verifiability, not truth". But when the discontinuity is plainly obvious (an outfit is adjusted at 1:01) then the "single take" material needs better sourcing that a radio reviewer's own unattributed assessment. And, even if additional sources are found, the article should use wording like "... is claimed by [notable person X] to have been shot in a single take ..." to indicate the possibility of puffery. --
Noleander (
talk)
17:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This Slant Magazine source here says about the video: "When a director chooses not to cut, to create a single-take, long take, or even, the feigned single-take—a recent music video trope and the best way to describe the editing in "Single Ladies"—the aim's usually for elegance and cohesion. Not so much here, where some rarified mix of performer exuberance and directorial subtlety meet up to create the feeling of a single-take while fitting-in all the visceral thrills of quick-cutting." (Bold emphasis added by me). I think this suggests that multiple takes were combined to give the illusion of a single take. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 18:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Should this be mentioned under covers or parodies?
TCO ( Reviews needed) 02:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(I actually wasn't pushing it. Just wanted to see what you all said. Do what is best for the article.)
Not really sure what that means, since there are definitely cuts in the video, and the lights are turned up and down several times... AnonMoos ( talk) 18:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The song was used again on Glee on the episode " Goodbye (Glee)" from season 3. My love is love ( talk) 08:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 04:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
As a personal observation, at every wedding I have attended since this song was released it has been played to call all the single women to assemble for the bride's throwing of the bouquet. And as soon as it started, every girl there knew exactly what it meant and would get up and move into place to catch the bouquet. I think this is a pretty major cultural use, at least in the United States, and there is no mention of it in the article . My observation is anecdotal but does seem to be supported by various DJ sites discussing music for the “Bouquet Toss”. I'm not sure I want to tackle this, but before this article appears as the feature article it seems to me there should be some mention of this. Ray Trygstad ( talk) 01:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the TFA blurb for tomorrow (soon to be today), reflecting the article, says the signature line of the song is "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it". It seems more logical (and grammatically correct?) to me that it would be "If you liked it..." Is there a source showing that the former -- the version in the article and on the Main Page -- is actually the phrase as sung? -- tariqabjotu 23:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't maintain consistency about the composers' names. When first mentioned theyhave nicknames (Clark "Superman" Kent style) as a link. A couple of paragraphs later they are the link Clark Kent and in the body of the text it is often just the nickname ("Superman" style). The album article doesn't dwell on the nicknames, gives full names first and later references via surname. I think that is much mor lreadable and less confusing. Shouldm that edit be done here? -- SGBailey ( talk) 10:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I only mention this because it wound up garnering the subject an interview on the CBS Early Show.
Here's the Youtube video of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpydVwVUrUQ
And here's the brief run-down, if you can't watch the video right now. (And I realize that if I wrote this up, it'd need to be more neutral and less conversational.)
Carlos Whitaker and his family were riding in their car when "Single Ladies" came on the radio. Whitaker's two daughters and his 3-year-old son, Losiah, were singing along to the song. Carlos told Losiah that he wasn't a single lady, and it broke the poor kid's confused heart. Whitaker captured the whole thing on video -- he videos a lot of his daily life -- and the resulting Youtube clip ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9eL3ejXmE ) went viral (over 6.4 million views since posted in March 2010). Within a couple days of posting, the video caught the eye of The Eye and landed the Whitakers an interview, where they got to tell the back story and raise a bit of awareness about adoption (Losiah is adopted).
So is this significant enough to be cited on this page? If so, what category would it be put under?
If nothing else, I hope you enjoy the video. ;-)
Bwsqrd ( talk) 15:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Enough. Bencherlite Talk 12:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Does a pop song, no matter how popular for the moment, but one that will be forgotten in a couple of years, really warrant this many words? Really? Bob Caldwell CSL ( talk) 16:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that word count of an article depends on how popular or long-lasting something is. Please, continue. St at us 23:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
|
I opened a WP:RM discussion at Talk:Single Ladies to redirect the page " Single Ladies" here. I consider that this song is the primary topic. If you want, you can join the discussion and give your opinion or thoughts. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
My love is love ( talk) 17:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
[15] — JennKR | ☎ 17:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Here, I attempted to condense the lead, trimming down on unnecessary detail reserved for the article body, making grammatical fixes, adding an attribution tag for an unattributed quote, and making the lead more easily readable overall. Tomica took issue with this, reverting my changes just a few minutes later without explaining what was wrong with my edits - it seemed more like an arbitrary attempt to maintain the status quo ( WP:OWN and WP:IDLI come to mind). With this in mind, I reverted, as I didn't see a logical reason for Tomica's revert, but lo and behold, I was reverted yet again right away. I'm not going to edit war over this, but rather, I would like to discuss with Tomica and others the benefits of having a longer lead at the expense of concision and serving the reader best.
So, Tomica, how does having the longer lead serve readers better? – Chase ( talk / contribs) 17:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw this listed at 3O, but will leave it for another 3O volunteer for a response after I make these comments. I'm not a frequent FA worker, but I am very familiar with Wikipedia policy, being the third most frequent contributor to 3O, one of the founders of DRN and the most frequent contributor there, and a member (and current chairperson) of the Mediation Committee. I'm not speaking in any of those capacities or on behalf of any of those forums, but only mention it to demonstrate that I generally know what I'm talking about. And one of the things that I know, or at least I believe I know, is that there is nothing in policy or guidelines which make FA articles petrified and impervious to further editing. What I'm seeing in this discussion isn't a rational discussion of this article based on what's best and what's not so good based on what's been boldly proposed by an editor, but instead a bunch of defensive posturing not based in any policy or guidelines that amounts to page ownership. Whether the proposing editor has had any previous experience on FA articles, or is familiar or not with the subject matter of this article, is absolutely irrelevant: this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that includes FA articles. There is no doubt here that as the editor proposing the changes that Chasewc91 has the burden of getting consensus for them since Tomica has objected to them (even though there was only a smidge of substance in his objections), but Tomica has the obligation of either discussing them dispassionately on the substantive reasons why or why not they're good or just being quiet. If he doesn't care to engage in a substantive manner, then I'd suggest that Chasewc91 file an RFC on the question of whether the existing lede or his proposed rewrite of the lede is the better choice for the article. I actually neither have nor express an opinion on that issue (though I reserve the right to do so later if I care to do so), but the page ownership and incivility here needs to stop. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
3O Response: Ok, first off, I can tell that both of you
mean well. I think Chase's edits were a well-intentioned effort to improve the lede. I think Tomical's reaction on this talk page has been a little hostile, but at the same time he is understandably trying to hold this article to
featured article standards.
I agree with Chase that the lede was a little long with some awkward wording. For example,
"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song from Beyoncé's third album I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008).
is an improvement over
"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song recorded by American singer Beyoncé from her third studio album, I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008).
Both those sentences convey the same information, however the first one does it in a more concise and accessible style, avoiding the passive voice.
However, not all the changes Chase made are equally beneficial. I thought I saw at least one place where Chase's version condensed by making use of contractions, which are generally to be avoided in formal writing, including encyclopedias. See MOS:CONTRACTION. However, I can't find it now, so maybe I was wrong.
One place where Chase's version falls short is this sentence:
The song – written by Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell and Beyoncé – was inspired by her 2008 marriage to Jay-Z and discusses men's unwillingness to commit.
The previous version:
Inspired by her secret marriage to Jay-Z in April 2008, the song explores men's unwillingness to commit, a topic that motivated Beyoncé to write "Single Ladies", "the only public statement [she and Jay-Z] ever made about marriage".[1] Composed by Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell and Beyoncé, "Single Ladies" is a dance-pop and R&B song with dancehall, disco and bounce influences.
is definitely wordier; and maybe could be condensed a little. However, Chase combined two completely unrelated thoughts that belong in separate sentences into a single sentence using awkwardly placed en dashes. Moreover, some of the information Chase removed, such as information about what musical style the song is, is information that is needed in the lede section of an article about an influential song. Chase's version neglects to put that information in the lede at all. Personally, I'd reword it something like this:
"Single Ladies" is a dance-pop and R&B song with dancehall, disco and bounce influences. It was composed by Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell and Beyoncé. Beyoncé was inspired to write "Single Ladies" after her marriage to Jay-Z. It explores the unwillingness of men to commit to marriage.
Hopefully this helps and has given you both some ideas. Neither version of the lede is perfect, and if you work together instead of fighting each other, hopefully you'll be able to improve what is already an excellent article still further. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't see what was so bad about the original lead I wrote while taking this article to FAC. I agree the opening sentence was not exactly grammatically correct but I don't necessarily agree about the rest. Why can't a 142kb article have a four paragraphs lead of at least 5 sentences each rather than having ones with three sentences? And with all the respect I owe to Chase (and I partially appreciate your input), maybe you could use your "encouraged bold editing" on articles which have not yet been promoted to featured status. That would help a lot. Thank you.
Jivesh1205 (
Talk)
17:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It isn't necessarily the length of four paragraphs with five sentences each that is the issue. It's about that the information in those sentences being noteworthy enough to be included in the lead. For example info such as all the composers and several news sources that covered the song are not. Also conclusions drawn from the info below such as the statement "It was inspired by her marriage to Jay-Z" from "Stewart commented that the song was 'the only public statement that [Beyoncé and Jay-Z had] ever made about marriage'...." is speculation on the part of Stewart and shouldn't be included in the lead in that form per WP:NOR. Also fixed some minor Neutrality when talk about the critics and media sources as not to imply that is was universally liked without exception per WP:NPOV. Some other info was also removed such as "Bob Fosse's 1969 dance routine 'Mexican Breakfast' inspired its J-Setting dance choreography." which is great for the body of the article, but really is too specific for the lead per WP:UNDUE. Now if at certain points someone thinks WP:MOSINTRO comes into play and wants to add some more specific info back that's fine, as long as it doesn't become too specific and potentially cause the reader to lose interest per WP:LEADLENGTH. It felt very much in it's previous form that it was overly specific simply to increase the length of the paragraphs and meet a preformed idea of "four paragraphs lead of at least 5 sentences" stated above without concern for content. The current revision addresses the aforementioned problems and more. — Lightgodsy( TALK CONT) 00:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" was written by Beyoncé, Terius Nash, Thaddis Harrell and Christopher Stewart, and was produced by
The-Dream and Tricky Stewart. Beyoncé recorded the song in April 2008 at the The Boom Boom Room Studio in Burbank, California,
and it was mixed by Jaycen Joshua and Dave Pensado, with assistance from Randy Urbanski and Andrew Wuepper.[2] The-Dream conceptualized
"Single Ladies" after Beyoncé's secret marriage to hip hop recording artist Jay-Z in April 2008.[3][4] Stewart commented that the song was
"the only public statement that [Beyoncé and Jay-Z had] ever made about marriage",[3] and that while in the studio recording the song Beyoncé
had remained tightlipped, even to the point of removing her wedding band.[3]
Which Stewart made the statement, two are mentioned Christopher Stewart and Tricky Stewart. I think it should be clarified, and don't have the time or interest at the moment to dig through the sources. If someone wants to fix this, it would be much appreciated. — Lightgodsy( TALK CONT) 00:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Made an effort to unify the form in which the names are used throughout as well, seems much better now. — Lightgodsy( TALK CONT) 08:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if xkcd #712 (see explanation) is worth listing under “ Cultural impact”. Its depiction of Sauron and the mental leap towards the forging of the One Ring is surely an interesting aspect of this R&B song. -- Gohnarch ░ 20:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
For years now, this article has said the song was released as a single on October 12. The reference for that does not support the date: R&R Going for Adds. Rather, the reference shows some songs that were added to the "Rhythmic" radio playlist during the week ending October 13. So the date could be from October 7 to 13.
Lots of media reports date the song from October 8. To me it looks like we should be telling the reader that the first airdate was October 8, and stick with that. Binksternet ( talk) 21:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Booklet
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).mtv1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).us_radio
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).urban
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).au
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nzz
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mast
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).itunes4
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Nick
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What is up with the statement "became known for starting the first major dance craze of the millennium and of the internet"? Would that not have been done by Crank That (Soulja Boy) in 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.70.210 ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It's all over the internet, the receptions of the songs "IF I WERE A BOY" AND "SINGLE LADIES", i hope someone could post them here because i'm still in the process of learning how to properly edit the pages with the sources/reference. please can someone post it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlaws001 ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere in this article does it mention that it is entirely bollywood inspired, from the music itself right through to the dance moves. I don't know why its not mentioned but its extremely obvious. Could somebody with more knowledge of Knowles please find some comments filling this out and write it in. 220.245.239.93 ( talk) 04:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I posted that Single Ladies is #1 on Billboard Airplay Chart, but it keeps getting deleted. Why's that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.37.230 ( talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
And why isn't there the fact that Single Ladies is #3 on the Global Charts? http://www.mediatraffic.de/tracks.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.71.145 ( talk) 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The overall tone of this page is VERY slanted toward a promotional sort of page rather than an unbiased description of the song. I personally find the song to be repetitive and mean-spirited, and have asked others their opinion of the song as well and gotten similar feedback, but this article only covers extremely favorable viewpoints to the exclusion of all else. I feel that it needs to include more examples of why this song might be well-thought-of, rather than simple quotes that say things like "The beat, courtesy of The-Dream and Tricky Stewart, is irresistible and exuberant, the vocal hook is stormy and virtuosic."
It just seems like this article is simply trying to sell the audience on the song rather than be a simple neutral descriptor of the song. -- Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.126.241 ( talk) 10:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
If I may address a few points about the song that people seem to have a problem with. Above, Scott states that the song objectifies women by calling them an "it". But I tend to disagree with this. The line goes, "If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it." The first 'it' refers not to women, but to the relationship/what they had, and the second 'it' refers to her wedding finger/left hand (hence the point of her constantly holding up her hand and pointing to her finger). So, in essence, the lyrics mean "If you liked what we hand, then you should have put a ring on my finger". But that isn't very catchy now, is it?
Secondly, people keep saying that the song isn't about female empowerment. But it is. The song is about a woman who "cried her tears" and gave her partner "three good years", but decided that enough is enough. She is going to move on. If he wants her back, too bad, because he had his chance. Orane (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with the comment above that this song is not "empowering". Aside from the fact that history will not judge the word "empowering" kindly, ask an Afghan widow or a Somali rape victim if she finds this song "empowering". What it's basically saying is that what women want from men is a ring on the finger. Now, what's "empowering" about that? Not really about real relationships, is it? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great song, but the article itself is embarrassingly long for something so slight and I don't think it can really bear the weight that's being put on it to be "empowering". LottieP ( talk) 14:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about whether this even merits inclusion, so I'll stick it here in the talk page. There seems to be a persistent rumour that one of the dancers in the video is a man in drag or a transexual. This is not the case according to Beyonce's publicist - see this Chicago Tribune article. Manning ( talk) 09:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The single has reached 4x Platinum in the master ring tone format. See this. How do we treat this? The infobox remains 2x Platinum. Thanks. -- 203.177.74.138 ( talk) 01:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
What is the significance of the metallic glove? Why is she wearing it? Whose idea was it? What was their intention? 211.28.129.218 ( talk) 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
theory. -- 79.166.179.37 ( talk) 09:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This whole long article and it doesn't even mention these guys, whose beat is sampled throughout "Put a Ring on it", and plays alone the beginning. It's from "The Show" by Doug E. Fresh and Slick Rick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.88.225 ( talk) 22:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The article says the video was shot as a "single sequence". Does this mean the same thing as a single take? What is the source for this? There's certainly a lot of cuts, so if it really is a single take it's not inherently obvious and we could use a citation. (Didn't find anything authoritative in the first page of Googles.) -- Chinasaur ( talk) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The article seems to suggest that the J-setting dance craze is only in Atlanta, but I've noticed it in other gay clubs around the South as well. -- Ajharris78 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC).
Your Wikipedia entry for the song T'ain't_What_You_Do_(It's_the_Way_That_You_Do_It) just outright says:
The song has formed much of the rhythmical and melodic basis for a song by Beyoncé - Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It).
Come on, really?? There's no proof of that whatsoever! Not one of the song's four writers has ever mentioned anything like that, and they've been pretty forthcoming about everything to do with this song. -- Valsadie ( talk) 19:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
beyonce's had a number of new/re-entrys in the u.k r'n'b charts can someone add this?!.. link below!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/rnbsingles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.181.188 ( talk) 21:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this worth mentioning? Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The song re-entered the UK Singles chart at number 75, marking its 75th week on the chart. Interesting enough to be mentioned? Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
★Jivesh 1205★ ( talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 07:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
★Jivesh 1205★ ( talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
★Jivesh 1205★ ( talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
★Jivesh 1205★ ( talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 00:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
★Jivesh 1205★ (
talk /
♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫)
15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Jivesh 1205 ( talk) 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" was written by Beyoncé Knowles, The-Dream, Kuk Harrell and Christopher Stewart, and was produced by The-Dream and Stewart. Recorded in April 2008 at the The Boom Boom Room Studio in Burbank, California, the song was mixed by Jaycen Joshua and Dave Pensado, with assistance from Randy Urbanski and Andrew Wuepper. [1]
The-Dream conceptualized "Single Ladies" after Knowles' secret marriage to hip hop recording artist Jay-Z in April 2008. [2] [3] [2] Stewart commented that the song was "the only public statement that [Knowles and Jay-Z] ever made about marriage," [2] and that while in the studio recording the song, Knowles had remained tightlipped about her marriage, even to the point of removing her wedding band. [2] The-Dream was inspired to compose the song because it explored an issue that affected the relationships of many people: the fear or unwillingness of men to commit. [2] In an interview with Billboard, Knowles added that she was drawn to the song because of the universality of the topic, and that it was an issue that "people are passionate about and want to talk about and debate." [4] She stated that although it was a playful uptempo song, it addressed a serious issue that women went through everyday. [4]
"Single Ladies" appears on the second disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce because Knowles portrays her alter ego, Sasha Fierce, in the song. [5] Chosen to be the two lead singles from I Am... Sasha Fierce, "Single Ladies" and " If I Were a Boy" were released simultaneously to demonstrate the concept of dueling personalities of the singer. [6] This reinforced the theme of the album, which was created by placing its ballads and up-tempo tracks on separate discs. [7] The singles debuted on US radio on October 8, 2008; [8] "Single Ladies" did so on mainstream urban New York radio station Power 105.1. [9] Both singles were added to rhythmic contemporary radio playlists on October 12, 2008; [10] "Single Ladies" was also sent to urban contemporary playlists the same day, [11] while "If I Were a Boy" was instead classified for contemporary hit radio. [12] The two songs were released as a double A-side single on November 7, 2008 in Australia, [13] New Zealand, [14] and Germany. [15] Dance remixes of the song were made available in the US on February 10, 2009, [16] and in Europe on February 16, 2009. [17] "Single Ladies" was not originally released as a single in the UK; however, the song became increasingly popular there and reached the top ten in the UK Singles Chart from download sales as an album track. [18] On February 16 it was released as a CD single and the dance remixes were released by means of digital download. [19] [20]
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 12:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not done as source is not reliable (i think).
Jivesh1205 (
Talk)
11:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 18:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The article says that the video was shot in a single take ( "... only one take was used in the final cut") and for verification cites an
NPR radio review by
Andrea Seabrook. The source of "single take" statement is not a producer or choreographer (Seabrook does not interview anyone in the radio review), but the reporter herself just makes the claim. But the video clearly shows a discontinuity at 1:01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1EFMoRFvY. I'm guessing that the "single take" assertion is just puffery, repeated by eager fans. I know that
WP:Verifiability says that the standard is "verifiability, not truth". But when the discontinuity is plainly obvious (an outfit is adjusted at 1:01) then the "single take" material needs better sourcing that a radio reviewer's own unattributed assessment. And, even if additional sources are found, the article should use wording like "... is claimed by [notable person X] to have been shot in a single take ..." to indicate the possibility of puffery. --
Noleander (
talk)
17:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This Slant Magazine source here says about the video: "When a director chooses not to cut, to create a single-take, long take, or even, the feigned single-take—a recent music video trope and the best way to describe the editing in "Single Ladies"—the aim's usually for elegance and cohesion. Not so much here, where some rarified mix of performer exuberance and directorial subtlety meet up to create the feeling of a single-take while fitting-in all the visceral thrills of quick-cutting." (Bold emphasis added by me). I think this suggests that multiple takes were combined to give the illusion of a single take. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 18:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Should this be mentioned under covers or parodies?
TCO ( Reviews needed) 02:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(I actually wasn't pushing it. Just wanted to see what you all said. Do what is best for the article.)
Not really sure what that means, since there are definitely cuts in the video, and the lights are turned up and down several times... AnonMoos ( talk) 18:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The song was used again on Glee on the episode " Goodbye (Glee)" from season 3. My love is love ( talk) 08:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 04:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
As a personal observation, at every wedding I have attended since this song was released it has been played to call all the single women to assemble for the bride's throwing of the bouquet. And as soon as it started, every girl there knew exactly what it meant and would get up and move into place to catch the bouquet. I think this is a pretty major cultural use, at least in the United States, and there is no mention of it in the article . My observation is anecdotal but does seem to be supported by various DJ sites discussing music for the “Bouquet Toss”. I'm not sure I want to tackle this, but before this article appears as the feature article it seems to me there should be some mention of this. Ray Trygstad ( talk) 01:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the TFA blurb for tomorrow (soon to be today), reflecting the article, says the signature line of the song is "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it". It seems more logical (and grammatically correct?) to me that it would be "If you liked it..." Is there a source showing that the former -- the version in the article and on the Main Page -- is actually the phrase as sung? -- tariqabjotu 23:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't maintain consistency about the composers' names. When first mentioned theyhave nicknames (Clark "Superman" Kent style) as a link. A couple of paragraphs later they are the link Clark Kent and in the body of the text it is often just the nickname ("Superman" style). The album article doesn't dwell on the nicknames, gives full names first and later references via surname. I think that is much mor lreadable and less confusing. Shouldm that edit be done here? -- SGBailey ( talk) 10:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I only mention this because it wound up garnering the subject an interview on the CBS Early Show.
Here's the Youtube video of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpydVwVUrUQ
And here's the brief run-down, if you can't watch the video right now. (And I realize that if I wrote this up, it'd need to be more neutral and less conversational.)
Carlos Whitaker and his family were riding in their car when "Single Ladies" came on the radio. Whitaker's two daughters and his 3-year-old son, Losiah, were singing along to the song. Carlos told Losiah that he wasn't a single lady, and it broke the poor kid's confused heart. Whitaker captured the whole thing on video -- he videos a lot of his daily life -- and the resulting Youtube clip ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9eL3ejXmE ) went viral (over 6.4 million views since posted in March 2010). Within a couple days of posting, the video caught the eye of The Eye and landed the Whitakers an interview, where they got to tell the back story and raise a bit of awareness about adoption (Losiah is adopted).
So is this significant enough to be cited on this page? If so, what category would it be put under?
If nothing else, I hope you enjoy the video. ;-)
Bwsqrd ( talk) 15:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Enough. Bencherlite Talk 12:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Does a pop song, no matter how popular for the moment, but one that will be forgotten in a couple of years, really warrant this many words? Really? Bob Caldwell CSL ( talk) 16:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that word count of an article depends on how popular or long-lasting something is. Please, continue. St at us 23:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
|
I opened a WP:RM discussion at Talk:Single Ladies to redirect the page " Single Ladies" here. I consider that this song is the primary topic. If you want, you can join the discussion and give your opinion or thoughts. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
My love is love ( talk) 17:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
[15] — JennKR | ☎ 17:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Here, I attempted to condense the lead, trimming down on unnecessary detail reserved for the article body, making grammatical fixes, adding an attribution tag for an unattributed quote, and making the lead more easily readable overall. Tomica took issue with this, reverting my changes just a few minutes later without explaining what was wrong with my edits - it seemed more like an arbitrary attempt to maintain the status quo ( WP:OWN and WP:IDLI come to mind). With this in mind, I reverted, as I didn't see a logical reason for Tomica's revert, but lo and behold, I was reverted yet again right away. I'm not going to edit war over this, but rather, I would like to discuss with Tomica and others the benefits of having a longer lead at the expense of concision and serving the reader best.
So, Tomica, how does having the longer lead serve readers better? – Chase ( talk / contribs) 17:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw this listed at 3O, but will leave it for another 3O volunteer for a response after I make these comments. I'm not a frequent FA worker, but I am very familiar with Wikipedia policy, being the third most frequent contributor to 3O, one of the founders of DRN and the most frequent contributor there, and a member (and current chairperson) of the Mediation Committee. I'm not speaking in any of those capacities or on behalf of any of those forums, but only mention it to demonstrate that I generally know what I'm talking about. And one of the things that I know, or at least I believe I know, is that there is nothing in policy or guidelines which make FA articles petrified and impervious to further editing. What I'm seeing in this discussion isn't a rational discussion of this article based on what's best and what's not so good based on what's been boldly proposed by an editor, but instead a bunch of defensive posturing not based in any policy or guidelines that amounts to page ownership. Whether the proposing editor has had any previous experience on FA articles, or is familiar or not with the subject matter of this article, is absolutely irrelevant: this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that includes FA articles. There is no doubt here that as the editor proposing the changes that Chasewc91 has the burden of getting consensus for them since Tomica has objected to them (even though there was only a smidge of substance in his objections), but Tomica has the obligation of either discussing them dispassionately on the substantive reasons why or why not they're good or just being quiet. If he doesn't care to engage in a substantive manner, then I'd suggest that Chasewc91 file an RFC on the question of whether the existing lede or his proposed rewrite of the lede is the better choice for the article. I actually neither have nor express an opinion on that issue (though I reserve the right to do so later if I care to do so), but the page ownership and incivility here needs to stop. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
3O Response: Ok, first off, I can tell that both of you
mean well. I think Chase's edits were a well-intentioned effort to improve the lede. I think Tomical's reaction on this talk page has been a little hostile, but at the same time he is understandably trying to hold this article to
featured article standards.
I agree with Chase that the lede was a little long with some awkward wording. For example,
"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song from Beyoncé's third album I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008).
is an improvement over
"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song recorded by American singer Beyoncé from her third studio album, I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008).
Both those sentences convey the same information, however the first one does it in a more concise and accessible style, avoiding the passive voice.
However, not all the changes Chase made are equally beneficial. I thought I saw at least one place where Chase's version condensed by making use of contractions, which are generally to be avoided in formal writing, including encyclopedias. See MOS:CONTRACTION. However, I can't find it now, so maybe I was wrong.
One place where Chase's version falls short is this sentence:
The song – written by Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell and Beyoncé – was inspired by her 2008 marriage to Jay-Z and discusses men's unwillingness to commit.
The previous version:
Inspired by her secret marriage to Jay-Z in April 2008, the song explores men's unwillingness to commit, a topic that motivated Beyoncé to write "Single Ladies", "the only public statement [she and Jay-Z] ever made about marriage".[1] Composed by Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell and Beyoncé, "Single Ladies" is a dance-pop and R&B song with dancehall, disco and bounce influences.
is definitely wordier; and maybe could be condensed a little. However, Chase combined two completely unrelated thoughts that belong in separate sentences into a single sentence using awkwardly placed en dashes. Moreover, some of the information Chase removed, such as information about what musical style the song is, is information that is needed in the lede section of an article about an influential song. Chase's version neglects to put that information in the lede at all. Personally, I'd reword it something like this:
"Single Ladies" is a dance-pop and R&B song with dancehall, disco and bounce influences. It was composed by Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell and Beyoncé. Beyoncé was inspired to write "Single Ladies" after her marriage to Jay-Z. It explores the unwillingness of men to commit to marriage.
Hopefully this helps and has given you both some ideas. Neither version of the lede is perfect, and if you work together instead of fighting each other, hopefully you'll be able to improve what is already an excellent article still further. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't see what was so bad about the original lead I wrote while taking this article to FAC. I agree the opening sentence was not exactly grammatically correct but I don't necessarily agree about the rest. Why can't a 142kb article have a four paragraphs lead of at least 5 sentences each rather than having ones with three sentences? And with all the respect I owe to Chase (and I partially appreciate your input), maybe you could use your "encouraged bold editing" on articles which have not yet been promoted to featured status. That would help a lot. Thank you.
Jivesh1205 (
Talk)
17:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It isn't necessarily the length of four paragraphs with five sentences each that is the issue. It's about that the information in those sentences being noteworthy enough to be included in the lead. For example info such as all the composers and several news sources that covered the song are not. Also conclusions drawn from the info below such as the statement "It was inspired by her marriage to Jay-Z" from "Stewart commented that the song was 'the only public statement that [Beyoncé and Jay-Z had] ever made about marriage'...." is speculation on the part of Stewart and shouldn't be included in the lead in that form per WP:NOR. Also fixed some minor Neutrality when talk about the critics and media sources as not to imply that is was universally liked without exception per WP:NPOV. Some other info was also removed such as "Bob Fosse's 1969 dance routine 'Mexican Breakfast' inspired its J-Setting dance choreography." which is great for the body of the article, but really is too specific for the lead per WP:UNDUE. Now if at certain points someone thinks WP:MOSINTRO comes into play and wants to add some more specific info back that's fine, as long as it doesn't become too specific and potentially cause the reader to lose interest per WP:LEADLENGTH. It felt very much in it's previous form that it was overly specific simply to increase the length of the paragraphs and meet a preformed idea of "four paragraphs lead of at least 5 sentences" stated above without concern for content. The current revision addresses the aforementioned problems and more. — Lightgodsy( TALK CONT) 00:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" was written by Beyoncé, Terius Nash, Thaddis Harrell and Christopher Stewart, and was produced by
The-Dream and Tricky Stewart. Beyoncé recorded the song in April 2008 at the The Boom Boom Room Studio in Burbank, California,
and it was mixed by Jaycen Joshua and Dave Pensado, with assistance from Randy Urbanski and Andrew Wuepper.[2] The-Dream conceptualized
"Single Ladies" after Beyoncé's secret marriage to hip hop recording artist Jay-Z in April 2008.[3][4] Stewart commented that the song was
"the only public statement that [Beyoncé and Jay-Z had] ever made about marriage",[3] and that while in the studio recording the song Beyoncé
had remained tightlipped, even to the point of removing her wedding band.[3]
Which Stewart made the statement, two are mentioned Christopher Stewart and Tricky Stewart. I think it should be clarified, and don't have the time or interest at the moment to dig through the sources. If someone wants to fix this, it would be much appreciated. — Lightgodsy( TALK CONT) 00:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Made an effort to unify the form in which the names are used throughout as well, seems much better now. — Lightgodsy( TALK CONT) 08:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if xkcd #712 (see explanation) is worth listing under “ Cultural impact”. Its depiction of Sauron and the mental leap towards the forging of the One Ring is surely an interesting aspect of this R&B song. -- Gohnarch ░ 20:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
For years now, this article has said the song was released as a single on October 12. The reference for that does not support the date: R&R Going for Adds. Rather, the reference shows some songs that were added to the "Rhythmic" radio playlist during the week ending October 13. So the date could be from October 7 to 13.
Lots of media reports date the song from October 8. To me it looks like we should be telling the reader that the first airdate was October 8, and stick with that. Binksternet ( talk) 21:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Booklet
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).mtv1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).us_radio
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).urban
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).au
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nzz
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mast
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).itunes4
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Nick
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).