Talk:Just the Way You Are (Bruno Mars song)

Writers/producers
Are a mess of redirects - can we cite them? Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC).
 * OOK simplified, but needs DeKalb citing. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Singer/songwriter vs Recording Artist
The terminology used in the first sentence of articles about Bruno Mars singles is inconsistent. Some articles call him a "singer/songwriter" and others a "recording artist". Personally I find the former to be more accurate, and it's also the term used in the article for Mars himself. Any other thoughts?Enigmocracy (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we mention the song has sold TWELVE million copies?
According to IFPI's Digital Music Report 2012, Just the Way You Are has sold 12.5 million copies, probably making it one of the 30 best selling songs of all time. Shouldn't that (or at least the sales figure) be mentioned somewhere? Mauri96 (talk)

Who wrote it
I have a problem with this song & article. First, it sounds just like a song I've heard many times before, although I don't know who it was; the words don't sound all that original or unique. But also Mars claims he wrote it all, but the article says 3 other groups wrote it. So, what really is the truth? Hillmon7500 (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Bruno, Lawrence, Levine and the other two guys wrote it, good enough? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Vocal range
The article says that "Mars' vocal range spans from F4 to C6." That doesn't seem right at all -- anyone have a proper reference for his range? Qantas 94 Heavy 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qantas94Heavy (talk • contribs)

all time charts
This song is placed at 79th place on Billboard 'Greatest of All Time Hot 100 songs'. http://www.billboard.com/charts/greatest-hot-100-singles

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Just the Way You Are (Bruno Mars song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110117224451/http://rt100.ro:80/ to http://www.rt100.ro/#/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Just the Way You Are (Bruno Mars song). 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/20130424132118/http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=69239 to http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=69239
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/online.gaonserviceGbn%3DS1020%26termGbn%3Dyear%26hitYear%3D2015%26targetTime%3D15%26nationGbn%3DE
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001083407/http://www.student-weekly.com/260911/entertain6.html to http://www.student-weekly.com/260911/entertain6.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/just-the-way-you-are-single/id382513480
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/just-way-you-are-deluxe-single/id396795865
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/internationalcharts/mexico
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.recordreport.com.ve/publico/?i=poprock
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227055450/http://austriancharts.at/2010_single.asp to http://austriancharts.at/2010_single.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110121160735/http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=73 to http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=73
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001195348/http://hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=2010 to http://hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=2010
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/2010/singles/print
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hitlisterne.dk/yearlist2011.asp?list=Album+100
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130815083859/http://hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=2011 to http://hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=2011
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/charts/greatest-hot-100-singles
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305015635/http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/chart/w140228.html to http://www.riaj.or.jp/data/others/chart/w140228.html

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) 20:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it could be a LITTLE more clear, actually
"Lyrically, the song is about Mars professing 'his love for a beautiful girl who occupies his dreams'. Billboard carries on with its explanation 'Mars professes his love...'When you smile, the whole world stops and stares for a while/ 'Cause girl you're amazing, just the way you are'. She concludes, 'Mars' lyrics aim to make female listeners feel nothing short of perfect in their own skin'."

Who concludes? Who is she? Who is being quoted here? Does she have a name? Are we even sure it's a woman? Are all these quotes from the same source?

"'Mars professes his love...'When you smile, the whole ..."

Is this one extract or two? There's a quotation mark missing, isn't there? "Mars' lyrics aim to make ..." is not actually a precise quotation, is it? And, now that I've looked at the source, this whole thing should be excised, because the source is a laughable 100-word capsule blurb without a byline.

All these Bruno Mars pages are just swamped with irrelevant detail and finely minced quotes. I know it's a labour of love for you, Mario, but they badly need pruning. Regulov (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have done this page a long time ago when I was starting on wiki. So be more supportive and help instead of criticizing all the time. You are the one needing pruning. FYI Billboard is a reliable source, but I'm not expecting you to know that. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, look, if you already know the page needs fixing up, why don't you do that instead of adding yet more matter? Don't make excuses and then tell me it's my fault. You're being defensive. I marked the quote [clarification needed] because I didn't understand it. You reverted reflexively, saying it could not be clearer. Who was right, Mario? Could it have been clearer?

I want you to have a look at the source for that quote. Billboard may be a reliable source; but that paragraph is not exactly the New York Times. An encyclopedia is a distillation of facts, not an agglomeration of them. Exercise a little discretion.

I think you, personally, have a hard time assessing, for example, how much chart analysis is appropriate on pages like this, or how many quotes from music reviewers, because you are a superfan, and your instinct tells you that every drop of data is urgently important because it is BRUNO MARS. I do not dislike Bruno Mars; but as a normal person approximately as interested in Bruno Mars as I am in Charles IV of Spain or the roseate spoonbill, I am telling you that these pages are bloated and low-fiber. It's a problem I often encounter on comic book pages and Star Trek pages.

Someone has gone to the trouble of determining and sharing with Wikipedia readers the lowest and highest notes Bruno Mars sings in every song. That's nice. It shouldn't be on the page, because it isn't important. It's just informational noise.

There are too many critics cited; everyone who writes anything about a Bruno Mars release in any RS publication has to be quoted, apparently. It is exhausting to normal readers. Pick a couple of reviews, the best reviews. Give quotes in full; don't chop them up into little pieces, and don't editorialize: stop having critics "confess" or "compliment" or "praise". Try sticking to "said" and "wrote". Let them speak for themselves.

When you're telling us about how well the single or the album did, how it charted, how it sold, try to restrict yourself to the most important and most representative facts. On the page for Lighters, we are told:

"On Norway's VG-lista, 'Lighters' reached its peak of number nine in its third week, leaving the chart four weeks later."

Look, Norwegian people's musical taste matters as much as anyone else's, and this chart information is factual and sourced, sure, sure—but if you insist on putting everything on the page, the page starts to feel like a garbage dump. Peaked at number nine in its third week, left the chart four weeks later. In Norway. No part of that is important information. If a species of anteater eats only one species of ant, that is interesting. If a species of anteater eats ants indiscriminately, we maybe don't need to list and describe fifteen species of ant and explain that the anteater eats each of them—even though people who study the anteater may know and care about such facts.

More is not always better. Regulov (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Lets get things straight once and for all. I just copied it from the BB article, that's how clear it gets Regu! I still don't understand what you want from it, you do the fixing since you are the one not to understand it! Charts analysis varies in how much success a song has, it's not I have a hard time assembling it. Personally, I think you are entering in a territory you are not familiar with and won't have a good grasp of things. If a song is peaking at number one in the US is being stated there, if it is setting records is being mentioned as well. I guess on Lighters one could remove the "leaving the chart four weeks later", it's representative because it entered the top ten. You are away overboard with the ants. If a song entered the top ten in seven countries they are being mentioned, it depenends on their commercial performance. If a song entered the top ten of 50 countries, I'm only going to mention the most representative not the 50 of them, according to you I'm mentioning the 50 which is not true at all.


 * I haven't added matter to this page in a long time, to begin with, I try to keep it cleaned up as much as possible. This article was passed a long time ago, in 2014. "Wrote and said" only? People should have a broad range of vocabulary, not only wrote and said. Critics express their opinions on the songs whether they like, dislike, or are lukewarm towards them. They might like the lyrics, but not the production, or the other way around. Every article states facts like that if you want to open a war with that be my guest but don't drag me in. If they are reliable sources and talk about the song why should I not add them? It's a GA article according to the guidelines of GA it has to be broad in its coverage. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * But you don't keep it cleaned up. For more than six years, since your "GA", that Billboard quote has been simply wrong, and when I flagged it the first time, you didn't even bother to check. You play fast and loose with quotes all the time. It's unacceptable. Words inside quotation marks have to be correct.


 * Yes, wrote and said. MOS:SAID Don't put words into people's mouths. It doesn't matter that you are trying to be impartial. You are forever telling us that critics added, explained, felt, believed, praised, labelled, compared, and on and on. "Confess" is your worst one. Never use that word, unless you're writing about a criminal proceeding. Just tell the reader what someone said. This is an encyclopedia. "But, Regulov," you say, "It will be so monotonous and boring: wrote, said, wrote, said." Ah! is because there are too many quotes.


 * "If they are reliable sources and talk about the song why should I not add them?" Because Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for everything that has ever been written about Bruno Mars. "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." WP:NOTEVERYTHING Some of your sources—that Billboard squib is a good example—are pretty garbage. You have to use some judgement. There's a difference between a thoughtful review and "content" pumped out by overworked underpaid twenty-four-year-olds for ad-churn click-factories. Have you ever found a critical assessment of a Bruno Mars song or performance that you did  immediately add to WP?


 * Be honest: when you happen upon a mention of Bruno Mars, even a brief and cursory one, in what passes for a reliable source, don't you set about adding it right away? But that's why the pages just get longer and longer. You know this is a problem. The sections get too long, so you split them, so we get critical assessments spread across three "different" sections. But the page continues to grow, so you cut the quotes down, shorter and shorter. We get three-word quotes, even The critic at the New York Times, we are told, compared the song to a "U2 production". !! What is this quote  How does it inform us? The comparison with a U2 production might even be interesting, but you don't explain it. You tell us the song is a ballad, and then over the space of two paragraphs you roll out  critics who tell us the song is a ballad. We get it. It's a ballad. It's a ballad boogie; it's a smitten ballad; it's a huge-hearted ballad. Great. If tomorrow you find a critic who notes in passing in the pages of the Vancouver Sun or the Belfast Telegraph that the song is a treacly ballad or an earnest ballad, will you tack that on, too? Why not? Just throw it on the pile!


 * I am sorry; I'm sure this back-and-forth with me is exhausting for you. You shouldn't have picked a fight with me over the 's; I'd probably have left you alone, instead of hanging around here looking for trouble. ;D What I am doing here is preparing you: I feel these pages would be better if they were shorter, and I am looking for ways to cut them, and I don't want you to f R e A k O u T. Regulov (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To begin with, you were the one picking a fight. Let me tell you, something boy, the BB source talks mostly about the lyrics, I don't cut the quotes down to a minimum. Well, the NYT source doesn't go into more detail, do you want me to invent stuff? Is that it? The same goes when it compares to Kanye West song? Should also I make up stuff just to please me? If you have a problem why don't you fix the page? Because I do clean up the page, I might no go into such depts, but I do clean up. So shut up! Guess what? After seven years it was still added to good topic after several people voted! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Please don't tell me to shut up. Of course I don't want you to "invent stuff". The reason I am not boldly making edits I sincerely believe would improve the page is that I am worried about your reaction. I do not want to antagonize you more than I already have, and I feel you are pretty protective. If the NYT source really doesn't go into any more detail than to say that the song in some indefinite way resembles a "U2 production", then I don't think it is notable, and it should be cut. But I think if I just went ahead and cut it, you'd have something to say about it. So I'm trying to discuss it with you here, first. It isn't going so well. Regulov (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what the article of the NYT says, "He also tackles U2 on the single “Just the Way You Are,” a No. 1 Billboard hit, though it’s less interesting than Mr. Mars is, despite some neat turns of phrase: “You know I’d never ask you to change/ If perfect’s what you’re searching for, then just stay the same.”". Maybe there is something here one can work with? I'm not going to dignify that comment with an answer. Is any of our discussions going well? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)