Talk:We Belong Together/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, I thought Say Something was the next single? OmegaWikipedia 21:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Singles sales

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.

Wow

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)

Comprehensive chart detail

what different between two version of these??
the old style is easier to read than another, isn't it

Old Style

"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

Current

"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.

Yeah, that old style is better. It's just that a somebody seems to be screwing around with the charts.

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)

The old style is much, much easier to read. And also, converting chart statistics like #81 into numerals is ridiculous especially when the Wikipedia:Manuel of Style states: "Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article." For chart stastics or any type of statistics, numerals obviously make more sense, so why are they being changed to words when it is not even a Wikipedia guideline?? --Musicpvm 16:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The number issue is a minor part of it (though outside Wikipedia, all the style manuals that I have recommend spelling out numbers under 100 except in tables). The use of "#" is not Wikipedia standard. I've discussed this at the MoS pages; if an abbreviation is needed (and we avoid them were possible), we use "no" (or "no." in U.S. English). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Mel, the MOS even says we can use numerals spelled out. What more do you want? OmegaWikipedia 06:01, 7 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)

You want the article to read well? So do I, but guess what? It looks like a hot mess, when you put it like that! Everyone has complained about it, even the people on this page, and everyone thinks it's like so much better in the old style. And you better believe my argument is strong, pal. Cause if you won't follow the rules, which you campaign so furiously for, why should we? What it all boils down to is a debate over style. (and you bring up the rules when they work to your advantage and then pretend they don't exist, when they don't) OmegaWikipedia 23:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedias have charts and lists and factoids. A basic rule in English writing is that you spell out numbers under 10, not 100. A big convoluted mess of words does not read well. Also, Mel's butchering has caused gross capitalization inconsistencies between all of Ms. Carey's articles, and these leave me disheartened. Musiclover 17:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
That isn't a basic rule in English writing; I have a number of printing and writing manuals, all of which say that numbers under 100 should be written out. That I've properly capitalised only some of the articles is because, fiorst, I'm only human, and secondly, a bunch of editors have been reverting my changes wholesale, clearly against the Wikipedia Manual of style. If you want the capitalisation to be consistent, read the MoS, and help me. Other things also need doing; for example, the pop-music articles are full of fan-gush and low-level music-journalist language, the use of their subjects' Christian names, badly formed internal links, etc. I could do with help on all those things. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I see your point. I've already started tidying up some of the other singles in her chronology. Musiclover 10:50, 18 August 2005
Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:32, 18 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)

Okay, fair enough, Everyking, I'll unprotect. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
When will the article be unprotected again? It has just become the longest running #1 single of the 2000s in the U.S., so there are many chart updates and other things that need to be added to the article. --Musicpvm 03:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Please unprotect the article!!! It needed to be update!!!
I don't know why it was protected to begin with, but I'll unprotect anyway. Everyking 10:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
James, I just noticed that you unprotected this page shortly after I protected it. Please don't do that again, particularly not if you go on to edit it yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
No, I think I will do it again if it needs to be done. Moreover, three days had passed since the protection. That isn't "shortly after" unless we're going on cosmic time or something. Everyking 03:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I left a note on your talk page apologizing, as I read it as having been locked and unlocked on the same day. I'd still appreciate a note, just as a matter of courtesy, before you unlock in future, but you're right that three days isn't "shortly." I'm sorry for not reading the history more carefully. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Numbers need to be spelled out as numbers

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

"Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article."

Please start following the rules, even the ones you dont like. Thanks OmegaWikipedia 22:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. The edits that I reverted involved reinserted an over-long and unnecessarily detailed description of a video that has tangential relevance to the article, and you removed the correct formatting of a number of dates.
  2. You're again insisting on the unnecessary, ugly, and non-standard abbreviation "#", which does go against the MoS. Moreover, all the editors who have been innvolbed in this debate have agreed that, at the very least, numbers under ten should be spelt out. I've given my reasons for preferring numbers under 100 to be so treated; you've offered nothing, merely changed it over and over again.
  3. Insisting on something because it's demanded by the MoS is one thing; why are you insisting on it because it's merely allowed by the MoS?
  4. While you've been away from these articles, for whatever reason, things have been fine; editors have added or up-dated information, there have been no arguments or tensions — now you're bulling in and starting it all again, for no reason that I can see.
  5. Note, incidentally, that I dodn't revert wholesale; I carefully kept those edits that added or corrected information, as I've done again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 05:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Omega, the reverting needs to stop. I'm not familiar with the style of writing normally used in these articles, so perhaps some gushing is acceptable, but it goes too far here even for the genre, e.g. "Against the music of the Pussycat Dolls' "Don't Cha" and in a provocative swimsuit, Longoria praised Mariah as she stated ..." followed by a quote from someone paying homage to the god that is Mariah Carey. We're supposed to write articles in a disinterested tone. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Slim, I agree, Mel isn't following to the compromise we agreed to on your page. And Slim, that part is not meant to praise her at all, but just to include Eva's spoken introduction. But I can see where you're coming from. How's this? OmegaWikipedia 23:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that's better, thank you. I suppose I still find it a bit odd to include all of a person's introduction, a bit like the Washington Post quoting a White House spokesperson saying to the press corps: "And here to answer questions for three minutes is George W. Bush, the president of the United States. Please state your name and news organization before you speak." But I won't quibble. ;-)
I forget what the compromise was that you reached on numbers. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Omega or Mel, what was the compromise that was reached over numbers? Regarding the # sign, I think perhaps Mel objects to this because it's not used in the UK, and possibly not outside Canada and the U.S., though I'm not sure of that. In the UK, people would normally write No. 1 instead of # 1. Perhaps we could check a British music magazine and an American one to see how they handle numbers. I can think of NME and Melody Maker. I don't know what the U.S. equivalents are. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Slim, sorry for the late reply. I'm not sure if theres an equivalent to those magazines, but its not uncommon to see the # notation in the USA like at the Rick Dees Top 40 Countdown [1] OmegaWikipedia 08:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
It would be too bad if there was in fact a compromise, because otherwise this is an excellent candidate for being one of the lamest edit wars ever. Wasted Time R 23:47, 31 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).

We should avoid abbreviations, I agree, but this is not one of those cases. If we're talking about styles from other publications, why in the world do you keep bringing up your collection of style guides?! Please try to not be so hypocritical in your responses

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.

The article reads better with my edits. Your edits makes it looks like a mess than no one can read.

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.

Mel, you always do this. You get a third person to mediate, and then refuse to accept anything comes out of it unless you get everything you want.

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)

Stop twisting the facts, Mel. The article was fine, before you came. The only type of confrontation that has ever arose was when you started editing this article. And I was not the only one who complained (see the talk page above for instances).

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)

Live performances

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.

The main Mariah Carey article is reasonably NPOV. Once you get into the individual singles articles, the list of achievements articles, etc., the fan-gush gets heavy. Don't bother trying to work on just this one unless you're willing to tackle the whole lot. Wasted Time R 18:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to make it clear that I'm in no way a fan of Mariah Carey; just somehow stumbled upon this article. :-) --claviola (talk to me) 20:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
It's ok, you're not risking public embarrassment by reading and commenting on this article :-) Even many Mariah-dislikers acknowledge that "We Belong Together" is an excellent record (mainly because she changed her singing style for it). Wasted Time R 20:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
That was a sarcastic writing so I removed it, Wasted, but the new version is cool too. OmegaWikipedia 20:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Chart performance

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)

The Mariah articles seem to be intended as a dedicated reference work, rather than an encyclopedic overview. So given that, the level of detail is appropriate. Wasted Time R 18:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Given all the records that WBT has broken, I dont find it inappropriate at all. It's not meaningless and if any other song had performed like that, their info should be added to. OmegaWikipedia 20:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The section does not need to be reduced at all. --Musicpvm 21:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Too detailed

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)

Yes there was a lot of fancruft, but that was the collosal glory of it. 45K for just one song! There was nothing else like it on WP, and now you're taking it away ... Wasted Time R 20:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
EM, the article is fine. I don't see why there's a problem with that live performance. It was a very complicated setup, its not like she stoof there in front of a stage with a microphone. OmegaWikipedia 21:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
EM, Ok, I agree with some of your edits, but there was no reason to use a new singlebox which you just created today. The Part about WBT being a hit in the teen market is important too and needs context, because songs that usually are hits on Pop radio usually dont become hits on Adult R&B and A/C and TRL. The song has crossed multiple format and needs context. OmegaWikipedia 21:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
OM, I feel your partial revert was, quite frankly, uncalled for, for the following reasons:
  1. The infobox. The note about which album the single came from should be highlighted in yellow, as it is on the original single infobox, which I have modelled the new one I made on. Using the word "Director" instead of "Music video director" will be confusing to readers...director of what? The recording studio? The orchestra? Chart positions should be in their own section of the infobox, and should be in order of the single's position, as detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Years of songs should be inserted in parentheses. The whole point of me creating a new single infobox was because so many single articles on Wikipedia, especially Mariah Carey's, look messy if the syntax isn't right, and are inconsistent with articles that actually do use the original single infobox.
  1. The new singlebox looks like a hot mess, I'm sorry, and is confusing. I think it was uncalled for of you in the first place to even remove it.
  1. Writing the numbers as words instead of digits makes the text read better, I think. For example, compare "16th #1" with "sixteenth #1".
  1. 16th #1 looks more clear to me, than sixteenth #1.
  1. Wikilinking. What is the point of linking to The Emancipation of Mimi right after the lead section, when it had been linked there? Or "One Sweet Day" being linked twice in the same section?
  2. Spelling and grammar mistakes. Take a closer look at your revert: "Not surpsingly" and "It was not able to break the record the record" are just two examples.
  3. Prose. What sounds better: "The song became Carey's first #1 single in five years, and has broken numerous chart records; its strong radio airplay enabled it to become the first song to cross the 200 million audience impression barrier", or "The song is also remembered for the numerous records it broke on the charts especially with respect to its record breaking airplay in which it became the first song to cross the 200 million audience impression barrier"? Again, just one of several examples.
  4. POV. Please stop adding back in "excuses" for the American Idol winner making it to number one for a week or Kanye West taking the top spot away from the song recently or Alicia Keys winning a video award. This type of opinionated and unsupported writing may be suitable for a Carey fansite, but not Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 22:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. Excuses? First of all, I didn't write these sections, I know. The Keys section was taken from the main article nor did I write the Kanye section. If you want to tone it down, please do, but dont ruin the article
I'm sorry, but I just don't feel like wading through lines of syntax to make a minor correction to the infobox. The new infobox template (which follows the WikiProject Song guidelines, unlike the previous version) is far sleeker and simpler to edit. I'm not trying to "ruin" the article, just being bold and making it read less like a fan essay and more like an encyclopedia article. Extraordinary Machine 23:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Melismatic

her trademark über-melismatic attack...

Is that even a word? --claviola (talk to me) 22:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I am astounded at the sentence (and the prefix), and Byzantine music scholars everywhere are turning in their graves, but "melismatic" is indeed a word. Jkelly 02:58, 4 October 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

Cleanup tag

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)

That RfC is a load of horsecrap. Also, the article is going to stay the way it is. If there is all of this information that can be added, why the hell not add it? That's why this place is called an encyclopedia. Sorry, EM. I strongly disagree with you. --Winnermario 01:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
If you think that the RfC is a load of horsecrap, perhaps you could respond to it accordingly. (The last time I looked, there was no response.) Even if we grant that this chart stuff is information (and not merely blather), one possible reason not to add it is that it's too trivial; encyclopedias are not undiscriminating accumulations of trivia. Of course, you're free to demonstrate that it is not trivial but instead is important. -- Hoary 01:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I can see some truth to Em's concerns. I thought that the article delves into the unnecessary (live tracker etc). However, I disagree with him that only Carey fans would find the info interesting. This song as not only spent 14 weeks on Billboard, it has also broken many other chart records, becoming the biggest song this decade, and at present, the article comprehensively documents these accomplishments. I really dont consider any section of "Chart Performance" trivial and superfluous, but I agree that the article could be more succinct. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 04:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Please consider Wikipedia:Article_size. The article is at 36kb as of now. Jkelly 04:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Very true. But while I might take this as yet another reason to cut all the blather about "chart performance" -- I mean, it sold lots of copies and made a bundle; nuff said -- others may take it as a reason to expand this to "fuller" (even more obsessive) coverage in We Belong Together (chart performance), We Belong Together (controversy among chart followers), etc etc. All of which would of course be perfectly fine in some separate Careypedia somewhere. -- Hoary 05:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources

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)

The sources and references have been included! —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion

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)

That's a very good idea. But:
  1. User:Eternal Equinox has "temporarily" left Wikipedia;
  2. I am far too busy; exams are coming up, and I have no time whatsoever. (We were the two primary editors)
Wanna dive in? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
EE's contribs seem to say he hasn't. But alltogether I'd say that it's a bad idea... individual songs should not have subarticles... maybe for the video if it's paticularly epic (I'm thinking Thriller level here). This is actually a very good article as it stands. My only content oppose, the graph, has been addressed, and once the appropriate amount of time has passed on the nom (wait a month since the last one was pulled) I'll support. Untill then, I'd say just put the article into a holding pattern guys. -Mask 23:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Oh, I'm still editing, but not as frequently as before. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

New material

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)

It is not the same sample; another was uploaded. While the sample in the box is of the reference to the other two songs, the one in the image is of the song's climax, and goes hand in hand with what the picture is proving (desperation etc). Also, I understand the retro thing. However, the topic sentence of the paragraph reads that the song was influenced by several genres. We can't just mention hip-hop and ignore mention of any other genres; we should mention the 80s retro influence (which would also make the article consistent —retro was mentioned in the lead). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware that two samples were uploaded, all right then, of course both are acceptable. But is there a reference for the 80s influence? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Not very explicitly. However, there is mention of the retro sound here (when people say "retro music", they are usually talking about 80s music, right?) Maybe it could suffice? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
We should use that reference, just in case. In addition, I believe the remix section should be situated beneath the music and strucutre area — although they were recorded with different people at seperate periods in time, the content deals with the music more than the chart performance, from my perspective. Perhaps it should be placed beneath above "free downloads controversy"? I'll conduct this edit and you tell me what you think. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say no. It puts it under the broader heading of "chart performance", which is not what it is essentially about.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
We can't just have it hanging in mid-air. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. How about under music and structure, with a distinctive heading (not a sub heading)? Try it and lets have a look. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
How about this picture as a substitute for the one in "music video"? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
We can supply the image in the music video section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:04, 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)

Yes, that's fair. Just to let you know that "critical apparaisal" sounded too... formal. I've removed it and changed it back to "response". —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Take care of We Belong Together for me now. Bye.

Intro

"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)

Thanks for catching that. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"it peaked at number-one in several countries"

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)

It reached number-one in four countries (that I know of) and the United World Singles Chart. I believe that "several" is fine. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The "Charts" section lists the US, Brazil and Australia as the countries it topped the chart in. Perhaps if there's a fourth country, then that should be added. Lunch with Jason 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, topping the United World Singles Chart doesn't back up the "several countries" claim.Lunch with Jason 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe it was the South African singles chart. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Writing and recording

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.

  • Hm, I'm not quite sure how to summarize this. Do you have any suggestions? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

You might be right. I'm going to certainly correct the third and fourth examples, but I don't understand why the second example requires elaboration. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying the song is a "universal love anthem" or are you quoting a critic? If it's your idea, it needs explanation and support. If it's from a critic, it needs explicit sourcing. Something like "...'We Belong Together,' termed a 'universal love ballad' by Joe Critic." In the latter case, more explanation would still be good - I don't understand what's universal about it. FreplySpang 22:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've given a full source; Carey was the critic. What other portions of the article require repooting? (I've become pretty lousy at this.) —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

specific version

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)

I agree that other works have this name. The Robert and Johnny classic comes to mind (in fact, to me, it is the most prominent work); however, given the large amount of incoming links to this article, I would consider using disambiguation templates on this one rather than a move page, or perhaps even setting up a disambiguation page. Alternatively, you could take it to Wikipedia:Requested Moves. That's a good way to gain consensus for controversial page moving. GassyGuy 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DID WBT SELL 5 MILLION???

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)

Hmm

The chords sound alot like Rick James' "Hollywood"?? anyone else notice similarities. 72.83.236.53 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit

ive removed "It smells.". funny but pov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.68.56 (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics?

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)

Exact same thought just occurred to me -- looks like a pretty clear case of copyright violation, and I'm not sure the links are good inclusions either (since most song lyric sites are also grey-area at best when it comes to copyright). I'm going to go ahead and delete the lyrics themselves, but whether the links should be included probably merits further discussion. Gusworld (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Lyrics aren't needed.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 01:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

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)

Chart peak positions

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)

GA Sweeps

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)

Given a remix in South Korea?

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)

2 false statistics in the intro

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)

Procession and succession

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)

Chart Positions

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)

All Time Charts

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)

Its in the text, but sure, I'll add a chart :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

All Time Charts

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)

Quality of article

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)

You think 2 small paragraphs is excessive when discussing the music video? Apologies, but I find making a 38k article on an unimaginative and critically ignored video extremely unnecessary.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you taken offence to this? I don't mean anything negative or personal by it. It's just that when I read it through, there were things that stood out to me as being a bit over detailed. And with regard to We Found Love, it was far too big to be in the song article. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 14:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You are missing the point. First off, no, I am not at all upset. I'm sorry if it came off that way as this was not my intention. What I'm trying to understand is how you think two small paragraphs is "overly detailed". And regarding my quip about "We Found Love", obviously I didn't think it was necessary to gather that amount of information (with its current size, no doubt it couldn't fit into the song article).--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Number 57 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)

  • Support - not having the artist name on one of several songs doesn't help anyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - At the time of the song's debut, there weren't any other notable songs. "Robert & Johnny" didn't pass Carey's song's notability. Now that "Big Bang" and "Randy Newman" song are notable, I guess we'll treat Carey's song the same as other songs, even when popular. --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I realize "Big Bang" song article is a mess. And Randy Newman song may not surpass notability of Mariah Carey's song. I'm changing to neutral for now. --George Ho (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:SONGDAB asks that when necessary, disambiguate by the artist's name. If the article is the primary topic, title qualification isn't necessary. I have no opinion on whether the Carey song should remain the primary topic for this title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per JHunterJ. "When necessary", therefore, you need to prove it is "necessary" with more material evidence than "5 others mentioned in the disambiguation page". Even WP:NCF says that when there are two or more films share the same but there is one primary film that film override the other films, as The Jazz Singer (disambiguation) demostrates. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:SONGDAB guidelines, since Carey's song notability is still neutral. IPadPerson (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Which "above"? --George Ho (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC) (Problem solved. --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 4 October 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Creation background

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)

External links modified

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: 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) 23:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 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) 04:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 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) 01:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We_Belong_Together/Archive_1&oldid=1140123378"