Talk:One Sweet Day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleOne Sweet Day has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Untitled[edit]

Who are the Crittenden-Joneses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.230.106 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unified charts[edit]

To User:Hoary: because unified charts suck. --Winnermario 22:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This terse comment will surely benefit from a little explanation. It's a response to the following message that I posted on Winnermario's talk page:

Hello, I see that in this edit ("Fixed the charts"), you have split a single table into two tables, "U.S. Billboard" and "World", and have added a column, "Single". (You also seem to have added one row.) I'm puzzled by (i) your splitting of the table into "U.S. Billboard" and "World", where "World" has no obvious meaning, and (ii) your addition of a column that results in the same cell being inserted over and over again, with no exception. The former seems merely strange, the latter strange and also a waste of bytes. Could you please explain, either here or on the article's talk page? Thanks. -- Hoary 02:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To recap:

  1. My reasons for unifying the tables are that doing so saves a few bytes and that a pair of tables seems to require a pair of titles that nobody has yet managed to get right. Winnermario's reasons for not doing so are that "unified charts suck". Perhaps Winnermario (or somebody else) could be more specific.
  2. I see no reason to add a column whose every cell is the same. Winnermario has ignored this. Perhaps Winnermario (or somebody else) could provide some reasoning.

Hoary 01:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If "world" has no obvious meaning, you are not very intelligent. It mean, well, the world! Charts around the world! Oh my God, this is earth-shaking!!!
I added the title of the song to the charts because beforehand it was misleading. I was looking at it thinking, "What is this?" And then I realized it was referring to the song. You might like to look at some other music single articles that have the title in their tables: Cool, Behind These Hazel Eyes, We Belong Together. It will become an ongoing trend. Please leave it there for consistency.
--Winnermario 19:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Winnermario, it may be that I am not very intelligent; but perhaps because of this and perhaps because I'm an atheist, I don't see how "U.S. Singles Chart" is any more "world" or "around the world" than "Billboard Adult Contemporary" is. (Neither do I see how it's any more "international".) The titling problem goes away if the two tables are merged.
To say the tables are misleading without a reminder on every line of the name of the song is mindboggling (perhaps again because I'm not very intelligent). Do you really mean that you might have taken, or actually took, such a table stripped of this (to me) utterly superfluous column to refer to some other song, or to some congeries of other songs?
Yes, I have seen the other articles. Perhaps because of the lack of intelligence that you tentatively attribute to me, they all look pointlessly bloated. Is it desirable to be consistent with pointless bloat? I counterpropose a new trend: to cut the bloat. -- Hoary 22:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because you are unintelligent. --Winnermario 20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a possibility. But don't worry about it: after all, my intelligence (limited though it may be) has sufficed to get and keep me a paying job. I suggest that my intelligence is also up to the task of understanding any rational argument (as opposed to mere bluster) for (i) the different "world" statuses of "U.S. Singles Chart" and "Billboard Adult Contemporary" and (ii) the need for columns whose every cell is identical. So let's hear this rational argument. -- Hoary 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an outsider to this discussion I, too, fail to understand the term World in this context. I see three options: 1) Merging the tables, 2) Using the heading "Other charts" instead of "World", 3) Moving "U.S. Singles Chart" to the U.S. chart and replacing the heading "World" with something like "Non-U.S.".

I don't see any need for columns that repeat the same information throughout. Such information is usually best included in the table heading, if it is needed at all. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if the real intelligent people are the Germans, who had enough sense to stop this wretched song from climbing any higher than number 25. -- eo 18:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chart positions[edit]

The song is #2 on the 1996 Year-End Chart and #1 on the Chart of the Decade ? This is not consistent... --Europe22 (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. Thats how it is. Remember it spent like 5 weeks at #1 in 1995, thats why. So its 16 weeks are split in between 1995 and 1996. Got it? :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this explanation! ;-) -- Europe22 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about sticking to the subject?[edit]

One paragraph goes into great detail about other songs that have been #1. Interesting, but wrong article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.197 (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on One Sweet Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problems found, thanks. :) VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 13:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on One Sweet Day. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on One Sweet Day. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on One Sweet Day. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard’s Top Hits of the ‘90s chart is not the same thing as the decade-end chart[edit]

“One Sweet Day” was still the the number one song of the ‘90s at decade-end as published at the end of the decade. These updated charts Billboard periodically released include data up to the present if I’m not mistaken, and by definition, are not decade-end charts. MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure how many articles this affects, even outside the scope of Mariah’s discography, but I would propose creating another sub-section for “retrospective charts” if we deem these important. MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_Sweet_Day&oldid=1209518726"