![]() | 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. |
Actually, I thought Say Something was the next single? OmegaWikipedia 21:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Where is it on the single sales chart? Ultimate Star Wars Freak 11:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's actually not on the sales chart. The sales charts are used only for physical singles, and WBT doesnt have one OmegaWikipedia 16:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Actually - We Belong Together WAS released as a 12" single. Due to the shockingly low amount of singles sold at the moment (Hung Up, by Madonna, has been at #1 with a proper CD single but with sales of only about 25,000 in over 2 months at #1) it has consistently floated around the top 40 of the Singles Sales chart with only a 12" since May 2005. In January 2006 it reached a new peak of #16.
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)
what different between two version of these??
the old style is easier to read than another, isn't it
"We Belong Together" Debuted at #81 on The Billboard Hot 100
"We Belong Together" Was Ranked #TBA on The Billboard Hot 100 Year End Charts (2005)
"We Belong Together" Remained in The Billboard Hot 100 for 17+ weeks
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 16th #1 single on The Billboard Hot 100 (the most for a female artist)
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 11th #1 single on The Billboard Hot 100 Airplay
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 1st #1 single on The Billboard Pop 100
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 1st #1 single on The Billboard Pop 100 Airplay
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 9th #1 single on The Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 6th #1 single on The Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Airplay
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 10th #1 single on The Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 5th #1 single on The Billboard Mainstream Top 40 (the most for any artist at that format)
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 6th #1 single on The Billboard Rhythmic Top 40
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's ??? #1 single on The Billboard Adult R&B
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 1st #1 single on The Billboard Hot Ringtones
"We Belong Totgether" was Mariah's ??? #1 single on The Billboard Hot Videoclips
"We Belong Together" entered the Billboard Hot 100 at eighty-one, and has stayed in the chart for over eighteen weeks.
"We Belong Together" was Carey's sixteenth number-one single on the Billboard Hot 100 (the most for a female artist), her eleventh on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, first on the Billboard Pop 100, first on the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay, ninth on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks, sixth on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Airplay, tenth on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play, fifth on the Billboard Mainstream Top 40 (the most for any artist at that format), sixth on the Billboard Rhythmic Top 40, and her first on the Billboard Hot Ringtones.
We're an encyclopædia, not a book of lists; text is preferable to lists, especially when the lists are repetitive, involve fan-gush use of Christian names and unnecessary and non-standard abbreviations. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I want the article to read well, not like a music magazine's chart pages. I've given my reasons; if all you can do is cite the MoS's permission, when many of your other edits violate its definite strictures (not to mention being inconsistent with each other), then your position is too weak to prevail. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Since this is the number one song in the U.S. presently, I think it would be better if the article wasn't protected. The revert war seems to be fairly low-level, as they go, so I don't see the necessity. Everyking 05:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Mel, we know you have tons of manuals that like to say that numbers should be spelt and whatnot, but the point is that the Wikipedia manual says
Please start following the rules, even the ones you dont like. Thanks OmegaWikipedia 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
My objection is partly that "#" isn't a standard abbreviation in any country (see MoS Talk discussion, where it was pointed out that it's used in the military, and in one or two other contexts, but the standard abbreviation in North America is "No."; it's "No" in the U.K., incidentally), but mainly that we should avoid abbreviations except in tables (again, see MoS). Actually, most of its occurrences in these articles are pointless (we don't feel the need in other articles to constantly tell readers that five is a number). Whether music journalists habitually use "#3" and the like isn't relevant, though; the MoS is Wikipedia's style manual, and isn't overridden by styles used by other publications (we don't, for example, use the "Oxford comma" in articles about OUP books, and drop it for other British publishers).
The basic situation is this. I'm making two kinds of edit: those that put into effect the strictures of the MoS, and those that are allowed by the MoS, and which I believe (and have given my reasons for believing) read much better. OmegaWikipedia is reverting both kinds. He's gradually stopped reverting some of them, and is leaving a lot of articles alone, but every so often comes back for another go. When my edits enforce MoS strictures, he simply ignores that fact; when they're of the other kind, he brandishes the MoS, treating what it says can be done as if it were what must be done.
No compromise was reached on numbers (except that I stopped converting numerals for the "weeks" section in some of the tables), as OmegaWikipedia simply reverts all numbers to numerals, including ordinals.
He disappeared from these articles for a few days, and things went well; a number of editors interacted civilly and pleasantly, and consensus editing started. Now he's suddenlt reappeared, and confrontation is again the order of the day. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
And Mel, you keep saying that you don't revert info. This is the THIRD straight time you've reverted info without even looking. OmegaWikipedia 22:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
I can see the effort that has gone into this article, but sorry, I think that it's way too detailed. For example (one of many), I don't think we need a blow-by-blow description of Carey's performance of "We Belong Together" at the MTV Video Music Awards. Also disappointing is the fact that the article has a severe POV slant in favour of Carey; every time the song loses an award or fails to break a record, the resulting statement is essentially "The song lost this award, but [unidentified] critics felt that the winner did not deserve it" and "Well, it lost its number one position, but it's only because of such-and-such". What other song article on Wikipedia (Carey songs excluded) has this much detail and fancruft? It's difficult to see the forest for the trees here. Extraordinary Machine 17:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
her trademark über-melismatic attack...
Is that even a word? -- claviola (talk to me) 22:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
"Melismatic" is a word of course (though it can't sensibly be applied to "attack"), but "über-melismatic" isn't. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
"über" just serves as a modifier. It's no different than saying, "ultra-melismatic". 18:17, 22 January 2006
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)
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)
If I was going to make a suggestion—and this is from someone whose main grumble about this article is that it's too succinct—I'd say expand the content into subarticles and get each subarticle up to optimal quality, and then work backwards, in a sense, by filling the main article with summaries of what was produced in the subarticles. By narrowing things down, it becomes easier to produce a quality product in each individual case, and ultimately the individual cases can also produce a quality integrated version. I think it would be a promising approach, anyway, to get a series of articles related to this up to FA quality, culminating in this main article going to FAC, instead of making this alone the beginning and the end of the whole thing—that certainly hasn't worked well so far. Everyking 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer it if the sound sample was not included twice in the "music and structure" section. This does not appear particularly necessary since the box is already provided. I believe it should be left out of the image. Also, Journalist, the material concerning the song being nostaglic towards 1970s/1980s R&B songs requires a reference. I must apologize for one edit I made, which I find regrettable, but suddenly I cannot remember what it was. — Eternal Equinox | talk 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I placed "remixes" after music video because it doesnt read well after the music section. While it does deal with music, you find that because it was done after the music video, and came after the song's release, its inclusion there gives the article a more chronological read. Additionally, because the last section deals with their chart performance, it sorta gives an introduction to the "chart performance" section. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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.
You need to explain why "We Belong Together" is a "universal love anthem" if you want to use that phrase.
"Once the studio session was complete,.... confident that the album was complete," sounds repetitious.
Also, "The composers experienced a lengthy discussion" is an odd phrasing. Maybe it would be better to say "Carey and Dupri discussed the melody at length," or words to that effect. I don't think that's quite the sense that the original phrase is trying to convey, though. FreplySpang 19:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
The chords sound alot like Rick James' "Hollywood"?? anyone else notice similarities. 72.83.236.53 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
ive removed "It smells.". funny but pov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.68.56 ( talk) 10:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
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 [2] or [3]? Cheers. Alloranleon ( talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number 5 7 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
– WP:SONGDAB asks that when there are two or more songs with the same to disambiguate by the artist's name, The underlying reason for this request is that song notability relates to the ear, age, musical preferences, nationality, language and sex of the reader. There are four other songs with the same title with WP articles and 5 others mentioned in the disambiguation page. Richhoncho ( talk) 08:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, page views in last 30 days 4498 for this page, 220 for disambiguation (showing 5% of people at most came here when they didn't want to), less than 2000 for all the other songs put together, so this is "primary topic" and a good name. 2601:D:3080:EA2:7DA0:4A21:CDBD:20B1 ( talk) 17:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
We Belong Together. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
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 {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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 14:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
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) 23:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_401751.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20050001When 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) 04:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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) 01:46, 30 December 2017 (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. |
Actually, I thought Say Something was the next single? OmegaWikipedia 21:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Where is it on the single sales chart? Ultimate Star Wars Freak 11:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's actually not on the sales chart. The sales charts are used only for physical singles, and WBT doesnt have one OmegaWikipedia 16:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Actually - We Belong Together WAS released as a 12" single. Due to the shockingly low amount of singles sold at the moment (Hung Up, by Madonna, has been at #1 with a proper CD single but with sales of only about 25,000 in over 2 months at #1) it has consistently floated around the top 40 of the Singles Sales chart with only a 12" since May 2005. In January 2006 it reached a new peak of #16.
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)
what different between two version of these??
the old style is easier to read than another, isn't it
"We Belong Together" Debuted at #81 on The Billboard Hot 100
"We Belong Together" Was Ranked #TBA on The Billboard Hot 100 Year End Charts (2005)
"We Belong Together" Remained in The Billboard Hot 100 for 17+ weeks
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 16th #1 single on The Billboard Hot 100 (the most for a female artist)
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 11th #1 single on The Billboard Hot 100 Airplay
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 1st #1 single on The Billboard Pop 100
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 1st #1 single on The Billboard Pop 100 Airplay
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 9th #1 single on The Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 6th #1 single on The Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Airplay
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 10th #1 single on The Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 5th #1 single on The Billboard Mainstream Top 40 (the most for any artist at that format)
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 6th #1 single on The Billboard Rhythmic Top 40
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's ??? #1 single on The Billboard Adult R&B
"We Belong Together" was Mariah's 1st #1 single on The Billboard Hot Ringtones
"We Belong Totgether" was Mariah's ??? #1 single on The Billboard Hot Videoclips
"We Belong Together" entered the Billboard Hot 100 at eighty-one, and has stayed in the chart for over eighteen weeks.
"We Belong Together" was Carey's sixteenth number-one single on the Billboard Hot 100 (the most for a female artist), her eleventh on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay, first on the Billboard Pop 100, first on the Billboard Pop 100 Airplay, ninth on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks, sixth on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Airplay, tenth on the Billboard Hot Dance Music/Club Play, fifth on the Billboard Mainstream Top 40 (the most for any artist at that format), sixth on the Billboard Rhythmic Top 40, and her first on the Billboard Hot Ringtones.
We're an encyclopædia, not a book of lists; text is preferable to lists, especially when the lists are repetitive, involve fan-gush use of Christian names and unnecessary and non-standard abbreviations. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I want the article to read well, not like a music magazine's chart pages. I've given my reasons; if all you can do is cite the MoS's permission, when many of your other edits violate its definite strictures (not to mention being inconsistent with each other), then your position is too weak to prevail. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Since this is the number one song in the U.S. presently, I think it would be better if the article wasn't protected. The revert war seems to be fairly low-level, as they go, so I don't see the necessity. Everyking 05:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Mel, we know you have tons of manuals that like to say that numbers should be spelt and whatnot, but the point is that the Wikipedia manual says
Please start following the rules, even the ones you dont like. Thanks OmegaWikipedia 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
My objection is partly that "#" isn't a standard abbreviation in any country (see MoS Talk discussion, where it was pointed out that it's used in the military, and in one or two other contexts, but the standard abbreviation in North America is "No."; it's "No" in the U.K., incidentally), but mainly that we should avoid abbreviations except in tables (again, see MoS). Actually, most of its occurrences in these articles are pointless (we don't feel the need in other articles to constantly tell readers that five is a number). Whether music journalists habitually use "#3" and the like isn't relevant, though; the MoS is Wikipedia's style manual, and isn't overridden by styles used by other publications (we don't, for example, use the "Oxford comma" in articles about OUP books, and drop it for other British publishers).
The basic situation is this. I'm making two kinds of edit: those that put into effect the strictures of the MoS, and those that are allowed by the MoS, and which I believe (and have given my reasons for believing) read much better. OmegaWikipedia is reverting both kinds. He's gradually stopped reverting some of them, and is leaving a lot of articles alone, but every so often comes back for another go. When my edits enforce MoS strictures, he simply ignores that fact; when they're of the other kind, he brandishes the MoS, treating what it says can be done as if it were what must be done.
No compromise was reached on numbers (except that I stopped converting numerals for the "weeks" section in some of the tables), as OmegaWikipedia simply reverts all numbers to numerals, including ordinals.
He disappeared from these articles for a few days, and things went well; a number of editors interacted civilly and pleasantly, and consensus editing started. Now he's suddenlt reappeared, and confrontation is again the order of the day. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
And Mel, you keep saying that you don't revert info. This is the THIRD straight time you've reverted info without even looking. OmegaWikipedia 22:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
I can see the effort that has gone into this article, but sorry, I think that it's way too detailed. For example (one of many), I don't think we need a blow-by-blow description of Carey's performance of "We Belong Together" at the MTV Video Music Awards. Also disappointing is the fact that the article has a severe POV slant in favour of Carey; every time the song loses an award or fails to break a record, the resulting statement is essentially "The song lost this award, but [unidentified] critics felt that the winner did not deserve it" and "Well, it lost its number one position, but it's only because of such-and-such". What other song article on Wikipedia (Carey songs excluded) has this much detail and fancruft? It's difficult to see the forest for the trees here. Extraordinary Machine 17:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
her trademark über-melismatic attack...
Is that even a word? -- claviola (talk to me) 22:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
"Melismatic" is a word of course (though it can't sensibly be applied to "attack"), but "über-melismatic" isn't. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
"über" just serves as a modifier. It's no different than saying, "ultra-melismatic". 18:17, 22 January 2006
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)
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)
If I was going to make a suggestion—and this is from someone whose main grumble about this article is that it's too succinct—I'd say expand the content into subarticles and get each subarticle up to optimal quality, and then work backwards, in a sense, by filling the main article with summaries of what was produced in the subarticles. By narrowing things down, it becomes easier to produce a quality product in each individual case, and ultimately the individual cases can also produce a quality integrated version. I think it would be a promising approach, anyway, to get a series of articles related to this up to FA quality, culminating in this main article going to FAC, instead of making this alone the beginning and the end of the whole thing—that certainly hasn't worked well so far. Everyking 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer it if the sound sample was not included twice in the "music and structure" section. This does not appear particularly necessary since the box is already provided. I believe it should be left out of the image. Also, Journalist, the material concerning the song being nostaglic towards 1970s/1980s R&B songs requires a reference. I must apologize for one edit I made, which I find regrettable, but suddenly I cannot remember what it was. — Eternal Equinox | talk 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I placed "remixes" after music video because it doesnt read well after the music section. While it does deal with music, you find that because it was done after the music video, and came after the song's release, its inclusion there gives the article a more chronological read. Additionally, because the last section deals with their chart performance, it sorta gives an introduction to the "chart performance" section. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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.
You need to explain why "We Belong Together" is a "universal love anthem" if you want to use that phrase.
"Once the studio session was complete,.... confident that the album was complete," sounds repetitious.
Also, "The composers experienced a lengthy discussion" is an odd phrasing. Maybe it would be better to say "Carey and Dupri discussed the melody at length," or words to that effect. I don't think that's quite the sense that the original phrase is trying to convey, though. FreplySpang 19:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
The chords sound alot like Rick James' "Hollywood"?? anyone else notice similarities. 72.83.236.53 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
ive removed "It smells.". funny but pov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.68.56 ( talk) 10:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
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 [2] or [3]? Cheers. Alloranleon ( talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number 5 7 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
– WP:SONGDAB asks that when there are two or more songs with the same to disambiguate by the artist's name, The underlying reason for this request is that song notability relates to the ear, age, musical preferences, nationality, language and sex of the reader. There are four other songs with the same title with WP articles and 5 others mentioned in the disambiguation page. Richhoncho ( talk) 08:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, page views in last 30 days 4498 for this page, 220 for disambiguation (showing 5% of people at most came here when they didn't want to), less than 2000 for all the other songs put together, so this is "primary topic" and a good name. 2601:D:3080:EA2:7DA0:4A21:CDBD:20B1 ( talk) 17:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
We Belong Together. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
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 {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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 14:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
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) 23:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_401751.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20050001When 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) 04:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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) 01:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)