Talk:Tequila (Terrorvision song)

March 2024
This is not about chronology. Your claim that Tony Wright was talking about 911 is jeopardized by three magic words: "it is possible". That means there could be another explanation, which means you are assuming something that may or may not have happened without backing it up with something that explicitly proves this assumption. Please explain to me how citing a music chart can possibly achieve that. ResPM (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 15:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Look at the quote. "They told us we couldn't do it that week. They said it was too strong, that Geri wanted to talk her way through another cover version and it had to get to number one."  She wasn't scheduled to release anything in January (and her first single was self-written).  So how could the label delay "Tequila" by a week for Geri Halliwell to get a number one when she was not releasing anything?  The cited chart proves that the song that took advantage of a week's delay was a cover version by 911.  Which DID come out that week.  Probably same management as Halliwell.  (That's leaving aside that a song which sells 58,000 copies cannot be selling 60,000 more copies than ANY other single.) In Vitrio (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe Halliwell's management changed their mind and didn't tell Terrorvision, and maybe Halliwell was planning to release a cover as her debut single. But again, all of that is speculation based on, ultimately, original research. A music chart does not say, "This song was at number one, so something someone said is wrong." It says, "This song was at number one because it outsold all these other songs." See what I mean? There is a missing link between A (the quote) and C (the chart). By correlating A to C and presenting your own theory, you are synthesizing your own material. The fact Tony Wright may have confused Halliwell for 911 is not stated by either source, and until you find some hard evidence like another quote from Wright or an article that talks about Terrovision delaying their release to appease their record company, it is pure speculation. ResPM  (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 16:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Halliwell wasn't ready to release a debut single at all in January - the Music Week article I linked suggests in fact that the release of "Look At Me" was brought FORWARD to May in a rush. Fact is that the chronology is proof that Terrorvision was not delayed for Halliwell but (if there was a delay) for 911.
 * There is also a Sunday Mercury article from 10 Jan saying "Tequila" was slated for release on 18 Jan. And references to 911 promoting "A Little Bit More" from 3 January with a release coming after 7 January.
 * It's not speculation though to say that Tequila was not delayed for Halliwell. It's a fact that it was not.  The article as it stands is incorrect. In Vitrio (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, those sources aren't in the article, so as far as I'm concerned, they don't exist. If you feel so strongly about this, what you need to do is compose a paragraph presenting the evidence as it is written in these sources, without synthesizing connections between the sources or using phrases such as 'it is possible', 'therefore', 'as a result', etc. I'm not sure how that can be accomplished in the context presented in the article, but if you know a way to phrase it without making any kind of "I think this is what happened" implications, then more power to you. ResPM  (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 18:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I've done. ;) In Vitrio (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)