Talk:It's Gonna Be Me

Fair use rationale for Image:ItsGonnaBeMe.jpg
Image:ItsGonnaBeMe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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. 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: moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's Gonna Be Me ('N Sync song) → It's Gonna Be Me
 * It's Gonna Be Me → It's Gonna Be Me (disambiguation)

– David Bowie's song doesn't even have an article --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Converted move request to a multi-move request.) Steel1943  (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:TWODABS. Use a hatnote. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support - clear primary topic. Red Slash 21:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose -
 * 1) this is a malformed multi-move request (again). The dab page should be included in the template in a multi move. In that way the bot notifies the Talk page of the dab.
 * 2) User:Red Slash, User:BDD, we cannot assume dab pages are complete, they rarely are; nominator failed to Google [site:en.wikipedia.org "It's Gonna Be Me" + "album"] before placing nom. The move should also ideally notify the Talk pages of the 3 albums with songs also covered cf WP:DAB: It's Gonna Be Me (David Bowie song), a 1974 song by David Bowie recorded at the same time as the songs from his 1974 album Young Americans, It's Gonna Be Me, a song from the 1982 Peter Green album White Sky and It's Gonna Be Me, a song by Merle Haggard from 2010 album I Am What I Am (Merle Haggard album).
 * 3) nom's argument "David Bowie's song doesn't even have an article" is invalid because that is contrary to WP:DAB which says that whether a standalone article exists or not is irrelevant. Unreal7, you must know that WP:DAB says this by now, if you disagree with WP:DAB perhaps start an RfC to change it.
 * 4) oppose on merits too. It's Gonna Be Me ('N Sync song) is working perfectly well as a title informing readers (and 'N Sync fans) that it's a song by 'N Sync, it may well be of more long-lasting encyclopaedic significance per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC versus the Bowie song (written about in 8 Google books since it escaped the album), the Merle Haggard song and Peter Green song, but so far that case hasn't been argued here. There doesn't have to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and with songs, which are transitory and have different fan/genre followings, the benchmark should be set higher rather than lower to stand totally unexplained and undisambiguated. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We both know that there are different interpretations of DAB's "covered by Wikipedia." The page goes on to emphasize one of the most "important aspects of disambiguation" is "Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title." (emphasis mine) So it's entirely appropriate to look primarily at other titles—i.e. of existing articles—when making these decisions.
 * You like to make the argument that the disambiguated title is helpful because it provides more information about the topic, but you seem unwilling to follow that argument to its logical conclusion: parenthetical disambiguation for every article (cf. your vote at Talk:Thunder in the Distance). To use some intentionally absurd examples, Barack Obama (president) and Germany (country) are "helpful" titles that distinguish their subjects from similarly named topics. Why are these not better titles? You've alluded to the obscurity of subjects, such as the band Architecture in Helsinki, and the transience of certain topics like songs, but I don't think you can seriously argue that those are criteria addressed at WP:D. So why is what's good for the goose not good for the gander?
 * Finally, as a point of order, this was not a malformed request when it was made; at that time, there were only two items on the dab, so WP:TWODABS applied. It's fine to point out the new situation, but not to blame the nominator for it. --BDD (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BDD, no, it is the job of the nominator to check [site:en.wikipedia.org "It's Gonna Be Me" + "album"] to find out what article content en.wp has per WP:DAB, before placing nom, and therefore this was a malformed request the moment Unreal7 placed it.
 * As for en.wp content:
 * [site:en.wikipedia.org "Thunder in the Distance"] shows no other content Thunder In The Distance has no other albums
 * [site:en.wikipedia.org "It's Gonna Be Me" song] shows content on 4 songs It's Gonna Be Me.
 * [site:en.wikipedia.org "Architecture" "Helsinki"] shows content on liter al architecture in Helsinki
 * [site:en.wikipedia.org "Britain in India"] shows content on British India not just British India (band)
 * So "what's good for the goose not good for the gander" doesn't apply to any of these 4 examples, because content not titles is the basis of WP:DAB. If you disagree with the first paragraph of WP:DAB the best would be to put in a RFC to change what it currently says. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was nothing wrong with the request, as those were the only two items that had anything approaching coverage on Wikipedia, and this is the only one that had or will ever have an article. It's not on the nominator to ferret out passing and sometimes very obscure uses of the term.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Putting a search term in the top right hand box and clicking search before initatiating a RM is not too onerous - which produces all four songs covered by en.wp. As it happens only the Bowie song apart from N Sync has received significant coverage. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:AT, WP:SONGDAB, and probably half a dozen other reasons, including, along, with most previous song RMs, including Talk:I Could Be the One (Avicii and Nicky Romero song), there is a general consensus to keep the artists name in the article namespace. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:AT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is the only song with an article, so the extra disambiguation is unnecessary and unproductive. It was a #1 hit single and far better known than all (ostensibly) ambiguous topics combined on Google Books: 522 hits for "It's Gonna Be Me" nsync" compared to 137 for "It's Gonna Be Me" Bowie, 19 for "It's Gonna Be Me" Haggard and 3 for "It's Gonna Be Me" "Peter Green".--Cúchullain t/ c 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Cuchullain. — Tomíca (T2ME) 23:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Tomíca. Torquemama007 (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Torquemama007. The NSync song does seem to be a lot more notable than the Bowie one, having been a top 10 single, as opposed to an album track that wasn't released on its own. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Support seems clear. Unreal7 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that the 'N Sync song was initially created as just "It's Gonna Be Me", but then someone copied and pasted six years ago. Unreal7 (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2013 (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 modified one external link on It's Gonna Be Me. 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/20090304120640/http://longboredsurfer.com/charts.php?year=2000 to http://longboredsurfer.com/charts.php?year=2000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Recording Date
Yes, of course it's made into a generic "1999", because unfortunately NSYNC is one of those groups that is considered manufactured in the eyes of many and therefore "unimportant" to history (rolls eyes). Partly because of one of their main group members not being so supportive of it today, a lot of their history falls by the wayside and stuck on useless 20 year old fan sites, hanging by a thread from dialup era or have dead links. The only song that they all worked on collectively, the list of producers and writers, was this song It's Gonna Be Me. Max Martin was named explicitly to be working with them the weekend of July 17-18, 1999 per MTV.

Martin Sandberg was not a producer on I'll Never Stop. Although I cannot provide a citation for a personal finding, an engineer I dated while living in Upper Westside Manhattan in 2010-11, worked at Battery Studios from 1997 to December 2001 and mentioned they were there the very weekend this song was recorded with NSYNC, as well as some early work on Spears' Oops I Did It Again later in 1999. NSYNC took 2 days for lead vocals. Saturday the 17th and Sunday the 18th.

I asked them if they were aware of any ballads recorded and they remarked both songs were recorded that weekend. At this point in time I am not going to find a source that explicitly describes that, being that the nature of the group would not have such details on hand. Carmaker1 (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)