Talk:Dangerously in Love 2

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dangerously in Love 2 → Dangerously in Love (song) — The original title of the song should be used for an article if separate articles are not necessary for different versions of the song as per Independent Women and No, No, No (Destiny's Child song). The only time the song was ever referred to as "2" as in the track list to Knowles' debut album. The 2 is not needed an could in fact confuse readers unfamiliar with the songs different versions.-- Ratizi Angelou  contribs 21:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree The song stand on it's own from the Destiny's Child version. It was already "Knowles' version" since the album and the information from the previous page was so lack-luster it took away from the article as a whole. The article is currently being reviewed for GA, so if anything we can wait till after the review to see if it passes the review and stays or fails and should be merged. Theuhohreo (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree Before working for GA, i asked my colleagues who told that Beyonce's version can have an article on her own. Her version is more notable, taking into account that it has charted and sufficient information is available on the net to make an article, which is not the case for the Destiny's Child's version. In case, you did not notice, i mentioned a bit about the Destiny's Child's version too in the article. Jivesh    •  Talk2Me  08:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral I really can't make up my mind. Covers are usually subsections of original recordings, but it seems as though the original is not very notable. I think that if we can craft a critical reception section (and composition, if it is much different from Knowles' one), then I will support the move. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I have changed my mind, and agree with Andrewa's comments below. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral I completely agree with Adabow. The original version does not seem notable, but if we find more information, then it can be moved. —Novice7 (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral I'm not sure. It is a cover, so it would be notable per WP:NSONGS to give the original an article. But, as stated per Jivesh, there is little information about the original. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  15:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree basically per Jivesh.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral Only if there is enough information on the original song to warrant. ℥nding · start 18:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per Jivesh and Ending-start. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 20:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral per Novice. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The current setup is confusing. Let me see whether I understand: The song Dangerously in Love was written and sung by Destiny's Child member Beyonce on their third studio album, Survivor. A year or two later she recorded the same song on her debut solo album, which she called Dangerously in Love, but she called the track Dangerously in Love 2. So, we now have an article called Dangerously in Love 2 about both versions of the song, and Dangeously in Love (song) redirects to it. That makes no sense to me at all. Either the two versions are different enough to warrant two articles, or they should be in one article whose title describes both versions... which may be Dangerously in Love (song), but certainly isn't Dangerously in Love 2. Andrewa (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The one the Destiny's Child sung is not notable enough. WP:GNG. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree that the original recording is not notable enough for an article of its own, but that is irrelevant. This article is and should be about the song, not just about one particular recording of it. That's why the current title is wrong. Andrewa (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Several issues will arise. For example, the one having gained critical response is "Dangerously in Love 2" and "Dangerously in Love". Same for chart performance. What do you really mean? Can you explain it to me in simpler terms? Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  15:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The song is called Dangerous in Love. The track is called Dangerous in Love 2. It seems agreed that it's the same song, so the issue seems to be whether the article is about the song or the track. ISTM that the article should be about the song, with a section on the track certainly but focussed on the song. OK so far? Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you listen to both versions, there are some modifications. In fact, i mentioned it in the article. And the one on Beyonce's debut album is called "Dangerously in Love 2". I mean the title is different. Even though we add Beyonce's version as a cover, the article will not look good since then the main song will be that of "Destiny's Child". The sections for Beyonce will be too large, making it seem that the "Dangerously in Love" here is unneeded. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  14:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But does any reliable source state that they are different songs? Leon Russell recorded A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall in 4/4 time, after Bob Dylan wrote and recorded it in 3/4, but it's the same song. Andrewa (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will search for one but please give me some time. I am very busy with school.  Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, at the risk of being harsh, when you say above Well if you listen to both versions, there are some modifications. In fact, i mentioned it in the article..., this is your own original research which you have added to the article, and which should be removed? Andrewa (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read the background section? Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the entire article, several times. And you've done an excellent job. But there are issues that frankly should have come up in the GA nomination, and this is one of them.

As a Beyonce fan, you're quite entitled to write an article about her and her music, even encouraged to do so, but you do come across a problem that faces all enthusiasts who write for Wikipedia on their areas of interest, that of objectivity or as we say NPOV.

I suspect that the emphasis on calling this song Dangerously in Love 2 comes originally from her publicity machine. It's very much in their interests to focus on her latest version of it. But is it really encyclopedic to have a Wikipedia article focussed on this particular version? It would be unusual, but not unique; Jimi Hendrix achieved it with Voodoo Chile (Slight Return) for example. But note that there's also an article on the song itself, Voodoo Chile.

To have an article on a version of a song when the song itself is not considered notable enough for an article of its own would I think be a first, and a little bizarre.

And as it stands, the article does appear to be about the song, not just this latest version of it. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As a Beyonce-fanatic I always try and stay as fair as possible, because I know wikipedia is not a fansite... But the article in question is written entirely for the Knowles version, officially titled "Dangerously In Love 2". Everything from the composition to reception to the live performances is written entirely for the song by Knowles alone. The song is different from the original Destiny's Child track in minimal ways, but the song in this article is entirely by Knowles. The song by Destiny's Child did not have significant coverage and nothing, at all, could be found on that song! I would understand if this was a "Knowles covered the song-issue" but it is not... This song is by Knowles completely. Theuhohreo (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We are going in circles. This last post assumes that they are two different songs, but that's not what the article says at all. Let me quote the lead sentences: "Dangerously in Love" is a song written and produced by Destiny's Child front-woman Beyoncé Knowles and producer Errol McCalla, Jr. The ballad was first recorded by Destiny's Child for their third studio album, Survivor (2001),.... How is this not about the song as a whole, in all its versions? Andrewa (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That is my fault, we ARE going around in circles here, i just happened no to read the previous comments lol :p You do bring up a good point, the article does discuss a lot of the original "Dangerously in Love" by DC, but those couple of sentences are literally all their is about the song. If the changes were made to the article, than it would be completely about Knowles' re-released "2-version". Theuhohreo (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that your latest edits changed the lead to "Dangerously in Love 2" is a song written and produced by Beyoncé Knowles and producer Errol McCalla, Jr. The ballad was first recorded by Destiny's Child for their third studio album, Survivor (2001)... which is of course logically inconsistent, as Dangerously in Love 2 didn't exist until long after Survivor was recorded. Do you mind if I revert to a version that makes some sort of sense? (How's school going, BTW? I hope you're not spending too much time on this, we want you to be a long-term contributor!) Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Done, see below. Andrewa (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Their is nothing wrong with the edit I made, so I changed it back correctly. Please read before you do something illogical, and i mean READ the entire articles edit! thank you. This article, which is currently GA, is about "Dangerously in Love 2, so the mention of the song in ever context should have that 2 in it. Before you come and personally attack me for "How's school going," you should try thinking first or I will file a report. thank you Theuhohreo (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit is safe for the moment, as I personally obey a one-revert rule, see below.


 * I apologise for what you perceive as a personal attack, but I must object to your calling it that, it was a well-intentioned mistake. I thought at the time that this edit was yours, and this was careless of me. I do make mistakes. Sadly, I see your lastest post as a deliberate personal attack in retaliation. This is understandable, but please, it does not help. Andrewa (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

One song or two
No, the reason we are going around in circles is that, frankly, you are ignoring the basic questions. The most basic is: Are we talking about one song, or two? That is, is Dangerously in Love 2 a new song, or a version of an old song called Dangerously in Love?

It seems to me that it's a new version of an old song. Just a few posts up, you say The song is different from the original Destiny's Child track in minimal ways. That's also consistent with the quote which I gave from the article above.

So, it's the same song. Agreed? Please, let's settle that before going any further.

(If this is agreed, we can then ask: Is this article to be about the song, or s it to be scoped down to one version of it? But this question is meaningless if there are two songs. So please don't jump to it unless we are agreed on the first question.)

Awaiting your reply with interest. Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Andrewa, "Dangerously in Love" and "Dangerously in Love 2" are actually the same song in the sense that they do have similar lyrics. However, if you read the article, you will find out that "Dangerously in Love 2" was initially set as a remix track but it later became the title track of Knowles debut album. Now, what all of you should understand is that the version Beyonce recorded and technically re-titled "Dangerously in Love 2" was the one


 * to get reception form music critics. (Search for reviews of the Destiny's Child Survivor. There is absolutely no reviews about "Dangerously in Love")
 * to chart on Billboard Component Charts in 2004. (When the song gained airplay, it was known as Beyonce's song and not that of the Destiny's Child)


 * To make it simple, it is useless to have an article for "Dangerously in Love" alone as it is not notable.


 * Lastly, i recently listened to both. So yes, they both have same lyrics lyrics. But there are indeed a few musical modifications. And the one ("Dangerously in Love") Beyonce recorded on the Destiny's Child album has background vocals. Perhaps, that is why Beyonce initially called "Dangerously in Love 2" a remix track. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  06:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So they are actually the same song in the sense that they do have similar lyrics, but there are indeed a few musical modifications. Um, haven't we been here before? A few musical modificatons don't make a new song, and surely you're not suggesting they do? Andrewa (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, i agree they are the same song. But, my main concern is that the article will look horrible. There will be only a few information about the "Dangerously in Love". Most information will be about "Dangerously in Love 2". Look at "Kissing You (Des'ree song)", at least this one is balanced. Are you understanding what i mean? If not, tell me. I will try to be more explicit. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  12:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Jivesh, they technically ARE the same song. But "Dangerously in Love 2" is the song that garnered all the attention, which is why the article is about Knowles' version. With the information found on the original "Dangerously in Love" you can barley compose a background for it, and i truly mean BARELY. And if the songs are technically the same, as you are trying to prove, the article is fine the way it is. Theuhohreo (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Y Resolved. There appears to be a consensus above that Dangerously in Love and Dangerously in Love 2 are versions of the same song. Andrewa (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation
There seems no prospect of consensus to move, so I suggest an uninvolved admin close the RM (it's probably a bit sensitive for non-admin closure). I'm going to take a short wikibreak from the article, and hope that the issues I have raised will be addressed. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why everyone seems to think that there is any difference between the songs. Yes the arrangement instrumentally is different but this is not a rerecorded song and BOTH version contain vocals from all members of Destiny's Child. There is no solo Beyoncé version, as 2 is simply a remix. This is why I suggested the move in the first place. It was never a question as to who the artists is. 2 simply removes credit from Destiny's Child members but their vocals are still present in the harmonies as is made clear by the apparent sound of member Michelle Williams voice. It is very distinct and present on both tracks. Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 19:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but just because your ears "hear" Michelle Williams in the harmonies, Dangerously In Love does not credit anyone in Destiny's Child to this song! No background vocals, no writing credits... Nothing! And I take Columbia Record's published word over what you are "hearing" any day. And the discussion about them being different songs is basically over with now. We are just waiting to see what an admin thinks of the issue and that shall be dealt with hopefully soon. The main concern is the look of the article, as the original song "Dangerously In Love" has basically ZERO information out about it, whereas "Dangerously In Love 2" garnered absolutely all the attention. Theuhohreo (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You talk about it like they are two different songs. They have both garnered absolutely all the same attention because they are the exact same song. Both the Survivor and Dangerously in Love liner notes credit the same exact things. Even that the vocals were recorded in the same place in California. Now why would that be? Seeing that all of her debut album was recorded in New York and in Miami. It's the only song on the album that was already recorded because it's the same song. The 2 in the title for it's article on wikipedia is complete unnecessary but you fail to see this because you're so convinced it's somehow more notable though there is no airplay for 2 on billboard or any other such notable source. They all give it it's simple title because it's the same song. The song was never rerecorded, I don't know how to drive that point any further to make it any clearer to you. It's simple really. They simply credit the song as a Knowles solo though it was recorded by the group. It's not an unheard of concept. Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ratizi, i suggest that you find a good source and hear both versions again. There is no background vocals in "Dangerously in Love 2". Did you read my above comments? Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  18:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Both versions have the same vocals in them. Have you made a thorough comparison yourself? And to say that it doesn't contain background vocals is ridiculous. There is clearly an overlay of voices on the chorus and throughout the entire song. Where am I supposed to find a source that says it's the same song? I think that should be pretty obvious. It's not a cover or a rerecording. It's the same vocal track over a different instrumental. Also, how could her first performance of the song have been at the Grammy's in '04 when it was her solo number on Destiny's Child's World Tour in '02? Dangerously In Love Live In Rotterdam 2002. A solo number, I might add, before the existence of "Dangerously in Love 2". Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 00:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you cite another reference apart from YouTube. Like MTV News. A reliable one. 04:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * MTV News article dated Jul 19 2001.

Ratizi Angelou  contribs 14:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't you think that you are contradicting yourself? First you said that the song has background vocals (those of Michelle Williams) and now you say that it is a Beyonce-solo number. What is really your point? If you read my above comments, you will see that just because Knowles performed "Dangerously in Love" once (or even more), it does not deserve an article. Do you think just one performance will make it meet WP:GNG? Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  16:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not contradicting myself at all. You're still not trying to understand me. Like I said before, "They simply credit the song as a Knowles solo though it was recorded by the group". And I still say there is no distinction between the original and 2. You need to stop thinking of them as two different songs. They're one and the same. It's not a cover (which would be ridiculous to say because it was hers to begin with) and it's not a rerecording. It's that same vocal track. Even on her Dangerously in Love tour I still hear the same track with Michelle in the background. From the Beyoncé Experience onward, she's had back-up singers so there's no backtrack that I can hear, just the Mamas. I'm not trying to be unreasonable, I simply feel this article is incorrectly named. Each performance of the song, in all actuality uses neither recorded arrangement of the song. They always feature full band versions, but they more closely resemble the survivor album version as they do not feature the heavy use of piano in 2. Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 22:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now i have a question to ask. Which version received reception (both critical and chart appearances) according to you? Think well before replying me. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  15:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were listening to me, I wouldn't have to make that distinction. It's still the same song. Either version of it received the same amount of reception, seeing as how it is only one song. Your asking me to choose between Spain and España as being more note worthy. Well it's English wikipedia so I'd choose Spain. 2 is only a remix on the original but since they are the same song I say just name the article "Dangerously in Love (song)" regardless of which you think received all this theoretically different reception.  Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 03:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The song was included on Beyonce's album as "2" and it is only then that it got reception from music critics and charted as well. So it means the one on Beyonce's album got 99% attention and it is "2", regardless of it being the same thing. If we change the article to merely "Dangerously in Love", it will imply to people - who do not know anything about music or Beyonce - that it is the one on Survivor that was notable, which is completely false. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  04:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if that were the case, where we treat it as a separate song, the 2 should only be used in the article in reference to the album version as even all her compilations and DVD's will call live performances of the song by it's simple name. I say we should do the same. Saying thing's like "She first performed 'Dangerously in Love 2' at..." don't sound correct especially since she never uses the 2 suffix at all when referring to the song. The only time the 2 was ever used officially by her was on her album. Ratizi Angelou  contribs 14:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ratizi, please understand that changing it to "Dangerously in Love" will lead people to think wrong. They should understand that it is only after its inclusion on Beyonce's album that the song got reception. Please my friend, try to understand this well. "Dangerously in Love" is not notable enough. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  16:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to be understanding but this is just silly. If it were called a solo on the Survivor album you would feel differently. You'd probably think, "yeah. It's always been a Beyoncé song so why title the article after the remix?" But because the original is credited as Destiny's Child, you want there to be a difference so you call this newer one the notable one because it's what she built her solo effort around and with the albums release she submitted the record for a Grammy nomination and used it as a radio single. I honestly don't care so much about this matter. It's just something I'm being a little OCD about. I guess mostly because it's something she does all the time. Like with her 2004 release of her version of "Wishing on a Star" by Rose Royce. She then released the song on the Roll Bounce soundtrack in 2005 as "Wishing on a Star (Bonus Mix)" and earned her self a 2006 Grammy nomination. Although titled differently, the song sounded exactly the same. I still don't know if there is any real difference to speak of. But it's fine. I'm clearly being out voted here. Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you see Ratizi, it is only after Beyonce included both songs on her own albums that they got attention (Grammy Nominations). So it should remain as "2". I appreciate everything you do for Beyonce-related articles. I hope we are still friends. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  04:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have hurt feelings or anything. But I still feel we should mention her earlier performances of the song. Say she performed it for the first time at the Grammy Awards is deceptive. Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 12:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will be adding it. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Was the performance on MTV TRL? Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  15:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was part of their set list on their first major world tour. See Destiny's Child World Tour. Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 18:36, 1 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reverting
I'm sorry, but as foreshadowed in the RM above and in the absence of any response so far I am reverting these edits.

The first introduces an inconsistency in the article text, which IMO is more serious than having the lead not exactly match the title, particularly when the lead does match the title proposed in an open RM.

The second removes content seemingly for no purpose (other than to oppose the RM). Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And it has been re-reverted . I operate under a one-revert rule, so I will take it no further at this stage, but the issues remain, and the lack of discussion is disappointing. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Solicitation concerns
Hi, all. I know nothing about this song and have no opinion about what this article should be named. But I stumbled across the following solicitations that pertain to the above !vote, and I felt obliged to note that here. I noticed, btw, that many people here are involved in the Beyoncé wikiproject.

I'm not alleging any wrongdoing. To be candid, though, I don't like to see any editor soliciting others to join a !vote, even fellow members of a wikiproject. It's my opinion that that's what watchlists are for; and that it's just too easy to influence a !vote by a solicitation like this. I realize opinions about that may differ from mine, in all good faith, and I'm also perfectly familiar with the "Appropriate notification" and "Inappropriate notification" sections of our canvassing rules, as well. I note that the "Appropriate notification" section says putting a short, neutral post on a wikiproject page is probably okay, but that the policy also tends to discourage posting wholesale to other user's talk pages. I won't argue these points with anyone, however; I know they're subject to interpretation, as well as dispute.

So while I'm not asserting that User:Jivesh boodhun or anyone else has violated the rules, I do think all interested parties should have the chance to discuss this. In particular, I've notified two admins about this: Andrewa because he was party to the !vote above, and Kww because he previously objected ( permalink ) to a similar solicitation made for  an AfD (scroll down to note the "canvassing template" there). "Similar" in that many of the same users were contacted, I mean, rather than similar in the way they !voted. I've also informed Jivesh, of course.

Anyway, here are the relevant diffs, found by looking through Jivesh's contribution history.

The following editors were solicited by Jivesh, and appear to have responded by !voting:


 * solicitation at 8:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user who !voted "support" (contrary to Jivesh).
 * solicitation at 8:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user who !voted "neutral".
 * solicitation at 8:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user who !voted "neutral".
 * solicitation at 8:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user who !voted "oppose" (same as Jivesh).
 * solicitation at 8:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user who !voted "oppose" (same as Jivesh).
 * solicitation at 8:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user who !voted "neutral".

Here are all the other users I could find that Jivesh solicited, and who appear not to have responded:


 * solicitation of user
 * solicitation of user
 * solicitation of user
 * solicitation of user

I notice from his contribution history that Jivesh pretty much repeated the same kind of notification process beginning at 16:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC) over this !vote at a different article, and that in that case, nearly everyone opposed him. Again, no assertion of wrongdoing, but regardless of the actual outcome in such a circumstance, I really don't think this is a very sound practice. Since this isn't my area at all, I probably won't comment further, and I'm certainly not going to argue policy points about this with anyone. But I just thought this was something that interested parties should discuss, and should try to come to a conclusion about for going forward. Best regards, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What wrong have i done? I never tell editors to support me. I only tell them to participate. I really do not understand why this has been set up. I mean, is there anything wrong in what i have done? This has nothing to do with WP:CANVASS. Several editors also opposed me even though i am really good friends with them. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  07:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And the reason for which i contacted these users is that the are part of the Beyonce Wikiproject. I cannot ask someone who knows nothing about Beyonce to comment here. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  07:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is what i posted

Dangerously in Love 2 URGENT
Please participate here.' Jivesh    •  Talk2Me

Thanks for your participation. Jivesh    •  Talk2Me


 * And i thanked everyone irrespective of their vote. I always ry to be polite. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  08:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no concern over the way Jivesh enlists people to participate. I feel that it's appropraite to grab our attention on our talk pages rather than just leave it to chance I may run into the article that needs discussing. As part of the Beyoncé wiki project, I like knowing when things come up. Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note, in case you didn't know: interested editors can watch the project's article alerts to stay up-to-date on activity. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, Jivesh did nothing wrong! He didn't forced a certain vote from someone, he just made it known that this was going on! and thank goodness he did because look at the conversation that sparked about it! From the list, I can see that a majority of the people Jivesh informed were from the wikiproject, and that makes it even more okay! We are in the project for a reason, so I personally find it very helpful that Jivesh informs users.Theuhohreo (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That is what i wanted to say. I cannot tell someone knowing absolutely nothing about the music industry, or Destiny's Child or Beyonce to participate here. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  17:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, me and Jivesh are good friends here on wikipedia, and if he did something wrong i would have no problem in saying so. I always keep an honest opinion and do not let anything influence them. But i really find nothing wrong with this. Some discussions go about unnoticed even though they are included in various pages. Jivesh simply made user aware of the discussion and offered those people to state their opinions, good or bad. This entire Solicitation Discussion seems so pointless, especially when their is a more important topic above that needs to be dealt with! Theuhohreo (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Dangerously in Love 2. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527083429/http://itunes.apple.com:80/us/album/survivor/id169717715 to https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/survivor/id169717715
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225031458/http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&title=Dangerously%20In%20Love&artist=Beyonce&format=SINGLE&perPage=25
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724121515/http://www.nuts.co.uk/video/search/all?term=Suga+mama+by+beyonce&x=0&y=0 to http://www.nuts.co.uk/video/search/all?term=Suga+mama+by+beyonce&x=0&y=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707231141/http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyonc%C3%A9-set-release-i-am-yours-intimate-performance-wynn-las-vegas to http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyoncé-set-release-i-am-yours-intimate-performance-wynn-las-vegas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)