Talk:Scream (Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson song)/Archive 1

Merge
Childhood information should be here - Ashadeofgrey 16:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Reasons?
If anyone knows why the song hasn't appeared on any of the Greatest Hits compilations over the last few years then it would be good to have the info here.
 * I think it's becuase Janet Jackson is on a different record label.

Wording or inaccuracy. It's stated that it debuted in the a top 5 chart, then eventually peaked at #5. What's wrong with that? Should I explain the faultiness. If both of those statements are true, then so is this: "The song debuted at #5 on the chart, stayed there for several weeks, but never went higher." Why am I typing this about something I care nothing about & is a waste of my time?

Links added by Realist2

 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-839816.html (Done)
 * http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1995/06/14/1995-06-14_that__scream__you_hear_is_ja.html (DONE)

Split the songs
I would recommend splitting the articles for the double-A side single into two articles:
 * Scream (Michael Jackson song) or Scream (Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson song)
 * Childhood (song) <-- currently redirects to Scream/Childhood

Wikipedia articles typically cover songs rather than singles, and the write-ups for the two songs individually show there is plenty of information on both to warrant separate articles. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally don't see the need. Having researched the songs, I cannot find any more information on Childhood, it's unlikely to expand further. Since the Childhood section is reasonable small I believe it can and should remain here. — Please comment  R  2  22:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is enough, however, to warrant its own article. There are plenty of Michael Jackson song articles that contain less information (not to mention hundreds of two/three sentence song articles from other artists just because they charted), and the "Scream" portion is much too large to also contain information on an entirely separate song. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would refute suggestions that "Scream" is " much too large to also contain information on an entirely separate song". Wikipedia allows very long articles. It should also be noted, other Jackson song articles are short because they are a very poor quality generally. — Please comment  R  2  22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not saying it is too long, but it's basically two separate articles in one. Here is a well-written article (albeit short but not a stub) on a song that is notable in its own right, thus passing WP:NSONGS. Unless you think "Childhood" is not notable, why wouldn't a split be warranted? --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia covers songs rather than singles, hence "You and I (Will Young song) " and "Don't Let Me Down (Will Young song)" existing separately despite being released as a double-A side entitled "Don't Let Me Down"/"You and I". 03  md  17:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find any evidence of this last assertion anywhere in any Wikipedia guideline. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with keeping a unified article.  There's no particular reason I can find why a Wikipedia article can't be about the entity that is a double-A single.   I think it'd probably be more helpful to broaden the article to include discussion about why these two songs were put together in a double-A format, rather than released as two traditional A/B singles.  Part of the noteworthiness of the two songs is that they were released singly in this way.


 * That said, there is clear precedence for splitting the article up, even if there are no rules which say it has to be split up. None of the Beatles' double-A's are done as a "joint" article like this.  And from a cursory look at several other artists, like Elvis and Dolly Parton, it would appear that User:03md is correct that, in practice if not by rule, "Wikipedia covers songs rather than singles".


 * Perhaps the best solution is one drawn from the literary world. There are occasions on Wikipedia where collections of short stories are given an article, and then the notable short stories from that volume are also given their own articles, as with Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque and "The Fall of the House of Usher".  So, if possible, I'd like to see this article remain where it is, with most of its discussion centered around the decision to release as a double-A.  Scream/Childhood should primarily answer the questions, "How well did the work sell?", "Why were these two songs released together?", "When was it released?" and other matters that pertain to the single work that is Scream/Childhood.  Then, the individual songs of the release should be given their own articles, i.e., Scream (song) and Childhood (song), should no longer be redirects, but rather filled with the content of Scream/Childhood and Scream/Childhood.  I realize this isn't the way double-As are currently done, but it really should be.  Double-As are notable for the very fact that they are double-As.  It's virtually impossible to accurately give chart positions for the two songs arising from a double-A.  The single's sales don't really apply to either "Scream" or "Childhood"; it only applies to Scream/Childhood.  There's no way to tell when someone buys a double-A whether they're buying it for "Scream" or "Childhood".  In fact, they're likely buying it equally for both.  To the extent that airplay or (now, but not then) internet downloads figure into the formula to determine chart position, you can kinda approximate which is the more popular side, but it's really a whole different animal than a traditional A/B single.  So, Scream/Childhood should definitely be preserved, even if this article is eventually split in some way to highlight the two individual songs better.


 * The fact that we're not currently doing this with other double-As is no excuse for the sloppiness of, say, the "Yellow Submarine" article asserting that the "Yellow Submarine" single went to #2 in the US, while "Eleanor Rigby" (the other A side) went to only #11.  The reason for the discrepancy is of course airplay, but there should be an article for the single which establishes sales for the single, which would obviously be the same for both songs. Statements in the Yellow Submarine article like: "[Yellow Submarine] won an Ivor Novello Award for the highest certified sales of any single issued in the UK in 1966." are just plain silly, even if they can be sourced.  Worse, the YS article goes on to say, "Despite this, it sold 1,200,000 copies in only four weeks and earned the Beatles their twenty-first US Gold Record award, beating the record set by Elvis Presley."   No mention is made over at the ER article about how many singles it sold, which is ridiculous.  Precisely the same number of ER singles were sold as YS ones.  Put a better way, the sales belong to the combined ER/YS release, not to the songs individually.


 * This necessitates, in my view, a reason in and of itself for Wikipedia to start writing articles about some notable singles, and as WP:NSONGS says, one criterion of notability is Gold Record status.  Czech Out  ☎ |  ✍  03:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

←I would also like to see these separated in some way. I don't think that either section is too long nor too short to stand alone in its own article. Yes they were released together on the same single but the songs themselves are vastly different. I think it's also safe to say that, at the time of the song's release, "Scream" was definitely the bigger draw... there was the hype that it was a Janet duet and the zillion-dollar video that received much more airtime than "Childhood". Clearly both songs have a backstory. - eo (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone - there should be an article on the single and its 2 sides and there should be separate articles on the 2 songs (and maybe one of the Scream video as well, which was clearly notable). Occuli (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This is rudiculous, a discussion of a year ago? really? C'mon this is a GA so if it is splited both article will be automatically GAs? Answer NO. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  22:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Childhood is a song that deserves its own article. There's plenty of information for its own page and is a lot more than just the other A-side to "Scream". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Double A-side?
As mentioned in the lead, "Scream" is the A-side and "Childhood" is the B-side - why is the article titled as a double A-side. I don't remember any mention of the latter song back in 1995 and would think that the single was released as "Scream" alone.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it's a double-A sided single because promotion was given to both songs on the single, whereas a b-side to a song is...just there. MaJic  ( talk ) 17:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

credits
This page needs a credits section, like all his other singles. Can someone with the liner notes in their house do this please? Kansaikiwi (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New section: Sleeve artwork?
Does anybody else think it's worth adding a couple of lines on how the cover resembles the Rubin vase optical illusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

anime titles used for clips in the video?
as far as i was aware, there were just a couple of relatively short chunks from Akira, synched to certain parts of the music - but a wiki-wander has led me to this page via "Zillion", which is a slightly older title, a TV series not a film, and done in a rather different art style. can anyone confirm this? are there full credits anywhere? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

anime titles used for clips in the video?
as far as i was aware, there were just a couple of relatively short chunks from Akira, synched to certain parts of the music - but a wiki-wander has led me to this page via "Zillion", which is a slightly older title, a TV series not a film, and done in a rather different art style. can anyone confirm this? are there full credits anywhere? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
This article has massive, massive POV view issues, mostly connected to the relationship between Jackson & "the media". Also, the lyrics aren't directly aimed at the media. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Where does the article have "massive, massive POV view issues"? Also, multiple reliable sources have asserted that the lyrics are about the media, please cite reliable sources before saying there not. Crystal Clear x3

split
This article should be split per the discussion above (see Talk:Scream/Childhood). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Per my comment above Tb hotch Ta lk C.  05:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And "Childhood" fails WP:NSONGS (I see no charts or covers by another artist) Tb hotch Ta lk C.  05:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Passes general notability guidelines as well as for songs "with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * D.S. (song) and Tabloid Junkie fails also NSONGS, just because we have a 62kb song article with coverage of reliable sources, does not mean that it passes WP:NSONGS Tb hotch Ta lk C.  17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles for those songs exist because they meet general notability guidelines which trump subject specific guidelines. But, again, WP:NSONGS incorporates general notability into its guideline, and thus all these articles do pass WP:NSONGS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't buy this. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  18:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way, again, I see no comments by your part of why this GA must be splited. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  18:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is my argument per WP:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Both of the other song articles that you say don't meet the criteria of WP:NSONGS are GA articles. The article for "Scream" will obviously meet it even with "Childhood" being split from it. Why couldn't a separate article for "Childhood" reach GA status as well? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd never said that the article "Scream" will fail NSongs, since it charted, unlike Childhood. It is not in my hands decide or not about a split, and I see no other editors discussing about it. If you believe that this is correct, I don't. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  18:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about "Scream" failing WP:NSONGS. I said "Scream" should not fall below GA status even if "Childhood" sections are removed. I reintroduced the topic of splitting on July 29, so give it time. People come across these things over time. Even that bit of a Childhood article you showed there was very good, much better than most songs articles I've seen. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Support I changed my mind, seems like a bad idea at first, but it is not, although both articles'll need a great copy-edit. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 19:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Organization of Songs
I absolutely agree to splitting the singles into two different pages, for the sake of cleaning up the infoboxes. Luminoth187 (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Luminoth187