Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)

Infobox image

MiewEN, the American cover art consisting of just a sunflower (not the artist herself) should be used. Why should the artist's face on the cover be more significant than the other? You already got CeCe Peniston's image. --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

George Ho, artist's face is definitely more sigificant to themseves than sunflowers in this particular case. The subject of the article speaks enough for itself too, but I am glad to hear you like flowers in the first place. There is no need to change the cover as the image clearly states in her native language Peniston's name and work as said earlier. And as for your mention of Carey in the summary field; she herself has international cover in some of her singles discography, and so does e.g. Madonna whose signature song as well the follow up release both have non-American covers instead. Next time though, please keep patient when posting a question as no-one is really obliged to answer you the very same day. MiewEN (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither Holiday nor Lucky Star had a US cover art. Someday I'll discuss those with others. Love Takes Time has a US cover. I was going to upload it, but digital copies of the cover are poor quality. The CD promo cover is good, but I don't want to use promo covers. In the meantime, we should represent her nationality. The Americans at the time of release obtained only the flower image, not the headshot one. Using the headshot image doesn't represent the American-made song or her nationally. I changed the image of Material Girl from European to the US one but only because I can't add more than one unless article discusses images significantly. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

To get a physical copy of the French headshot edition, you should have gone to a store that had sold French music imports. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that sort of "national" arguments which seem more rasistic to me at the end of the day. I am neither French, nor American. The French art work simply presents the artist herself as first ever, not other objects such as sunflowers or work by other artists (i.e. photograph of no particular significance), which are not even a subject of the work within its lyrical content. For that reason, the French edition is most notable of all in fact, so the cover was chosen very carefully. This is a musical work, not a fiction book. Writers are not displayed on the covers for obvious reasons, musical artists are as they have other instrumental tools to promote their works also visually (music videos, tours, etc). Besides, the original song remains the same, no matter international releases, so this is not an exclusively French re-release with vocals or lyrics re-sung in French. As for the rest, neither using the other objects do not represent the American-made song or her nationally, that's what the work's language should serve for. In this case, it is in English with a local sticker, so any discussions about possible misinterpretation of the discussed subject, artist or work, are irrelevant as obvious on the displayed cover too. The sticker itself also stresses "U.S.A." in the first place. And as far as I know, singles are sold only at the time of their official releases, so you will not get a physical copy of either edition in the store these days. MiewEN (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops... When I discussed physical copy, I should have said "at the time of release". Anyhow, we haven't reached a compromise, so I'm taking this to the WP:DRN. --George Ho (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, because we can't use more than one image of an original singer's version, the article becomes torn between the French (headshot) and the American (sunflower). --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: GHo, I appreciate your note left also on my talk page but I don't know what compromise one may be looking here for while arguing, more or less, with nationalism, because that's what it is either in a good or other way around. For my part, I was trying to clarify the key reasons in favor of the most notable cover, not more national one or so as there is no such term, unless we talk about official anthems. All releases of any commercial single are equal to each other, they only deal with different global restrictions due to various taxes rates which are a subject of individual local governments, not one nation[al]. So the only thing that could make also two single's covers of a song much different on that level, would occur if the song was to be sold either only in one concrete country, which is not the case, or duty-free at least elsewhere, also out of the question. In other words - if you came, let's say, with a proposal to include the British cover instead, claiming that the song reached its highest position on the official music charts in the UK in fact (while charting in there also multiple times!), I could respect that as an argument notable worldwide. But sticking strictly on a rule that would so to speak "flag" each and every song in an artist's discography depending on their nationality, there is not much I can talk about or offer any compromise, because we are all entitled to one for free, regardless of a country of origins. And that's not notable to me at all; simple as that. With all due respect, you are not really looking for a neutral or third opinion, you are chasing one and only as evident also on the chat with Erpert below. So you'd might rather consider about putting American flag to all infoboxes for you don't really care about significant cover arts. Well, good hunt with that, I'm busy otherwise. MiewEN (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

Both album covers should be allowed in the infobox: the US cover at the top, and the international cover further down via the {{extra album cover}} field. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't work for normally singles (and sometimes albums), Erpert. Administrators like Masem and others like IndianBio disapprove using more than one cover art, although one-image rule is not an official rule. Haven't you heard of WP:NFCC? Well, this proves how fragile "third opinion" is. --George Ho (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? It works just fine for "Keep Fishin'" (for example). Anyway, I create quite a number of album and single articles, and although I personally don't use more than one cover, I wouldn't be against someone adding an additional cover either. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed the UK cover art in favor of (presumably) the American one. --George Ho (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

For everyone's pleasure, I added back American sunflower art as an extra cover art, but I placed it on top and moved the headshot to the bottom instead. In the meantime, I'll soon request RFC. George Ho (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The song is sung by an American singer. We currently have the American cover artwork consisting of just a sunflower and the French cover artwork consisting of a female singer's face. Shall we keep both images or just one of them? If just one, either a sunflower (U.S.) or a headshot (French)? [EDIT: There is a 1992 UK edition, different from both of them. I'm not going to include it, but you decide.] Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

---

To eyes open ^worldwide • Before you make any conclusion based on a biased choice, make sure to read the postscript note above [PS:] which fully circumscribes the terms nationality versus notability. MiewEN (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

---

I browsed with Google Books and found no books discussing either artwork. Period. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Meaning? Translation, please. MiewEN (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find sources discussing either a headshot image or a sunflower image. George Ho (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you refer now to my note regarding "a commentary for an extra non-free cover art as specified in the NFC guide" left FYI on the WPA, then you shouldn't probably include additional cover to the infobox, or else interfere into one running dispute before establishing a potential consensus for one particular issue at a time. Anyway, I've got a good news for you too — if you choose notability instead the other e-N-tity, it shouldn't be a big deal to support any cover art with official chart references available for such release(s). Glad to help, cheers. MiewEN (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, both images are equally notable. I had to disregard the rules that got us into dispute like this by adding extra image. Illustrating the artist's face is unnecessary because we already got a free image of the singer. A reader can go to the singer page and see the picture. Or a reader can search for an image of her online and download it for personal use. A reader may not care about the image as long as the edition from a home region is used. If we use the French longer, then the reader would be confused and assume that the song wasn't released commercially in physical forms, id est a CD or a vinyl. George Ho (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Every thing is equal within its terminology, not in terms of performances which may distinguish a particular difference to each of any individually, depending on their own results. That has been pretty much established, while shading a light on notability as such here. As for your comment that you had to disregard some rules, all I have been told is that was your choice, so don't hold the IAR reference now responsible for any part of this. I myself believe that either party involved in a dispute is not to take any concrete steps unless they are told-so by a third one. Otherwise they shouldn't be seeking help through the DRN in general. Illustrating performers as optional etc. is clear to me, yet you didn't defend well to my knowledge, why other objects should not be that much equal too, or rather what makes your preferences fair enough at least. The second part of your most recent posting - two last sentences as whole to be specific, these make no sense, buddy. Try to rephrase them, please, or leave it, sorry. MiewEN (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, "didn't defend well". Rephrasing last two three sentences: A French or another non-U.S. edition is a different story, however. Using either of those images to illustrate an overseas edition to a reader can vary in many circumstances. A reader may become an editor, or a reader can still be a reader. An editor can use either or both images, home region or overseas. I can give you situations (not all though) below:

1. Single is commercially available only overseas. Home region either has a promo material or doesn't.
2. The home region edition exists.
   1. A home region edition lacks a cover art.
      1. A side label is used.
      2. An overseas edition is used.
   2. A home region edition contains a cover art.
      1. Digital copy of cover art is of poor quality, so a home region edition is not used.
      2. The quality is decent.

A non-editing reader may conclude things, depending on a situation and an image. I crossed out the third-to-last sentence. --George Ho (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

---

No offense, stranger, but at this point I must admit that the further you go, the less you make sense in English. Next time you'd might sit, think it through and, after that, going public. MiewEN (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I was trying to explain how editors connect to all readers, but I went too much detail and loopy. Also, I couldn't explain well how I must relate to a reader reading this article. I'll try to slow down and focus on you and a reader in that perspective. If you use the French-y edition, how do you think a reader will react? How will the image connect to the article itself? George Ho (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Country of origin/manufacture and/or destination, NONE of these matter (as explained in detail also on the WPA). Background information serves for instrumental, not essential purposes. These stats are the interest of general categorization of subjects, not part of evaluation process itself. So whether you refer to English, French, or other "frame of reference", the body is the same. But let me make this straight to you for good, please. Reading your personal profile, you identify yourself as a gay-male. I'm glad to know whatever turns people on, but now to the point if you don't "never mind". Is this your all know-how or know-it-all of your own, George Ho? Hope I've made it clear to you what always really minds and all ways counts. End of the story. MiewEN (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Readers' perspectives matters, so a link between an article and an image to connect a reader matters also, right? Book covers of 1st editions are often used and preferable. In contrast, there hasn't been an official standard for cover arts of albums and singles. If the article says that the single was released in the U.S., that edition should exist. If a reader sees the French edition used in the infobox, he or she would wonder why the home region edition is not used. Or if a caption is absent, and a reader finds it omitted, he or she may have to either research further or stand there and do nothing except thinking and wondering about it. Why would a reader give a damn about the singer's face on the image when the article says that the single was released in the U.S.? --George Ho (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• My vote goes for the cover with the photo of Cece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlossfsu (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 June 2015‎ (Moved from my talk page. --George Ho (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC))
• The US cover should be the lead image and if only one is used, that should be the one. The reader should be presented with the cover from the country of origin. Were this a French single I would expect the French cover. Gamaliel (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Gamaliel. I don't see any harm in having both pictures present, but surely the American artwork should be in the infobox. Eman235/talk 22:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

French image deleted

I started an FFD discussion on File:Peniston Finally CDS.jpg. As a result, the image got deleted. You can do deletion review if you want to resurrect the image. --George Ho (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Finally (CeCe Peniston 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5hFf8iFDu to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DaMNbmDo to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Finally (CeCe Peniston 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626050454/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120526222106/http://www.gotofirstclass.com/cece_peniston.htm to http://www.gotofirstclass.com/cece_peniston.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Finally (CeCe Peniston song)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Finally (CeCe Peniston song)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "billboard":

• From Nothing Can Stop Me: Trust, Gary (2014-08-18). "Chart Highlights: Sam Smith's 'Stay' Hits No. 1 On Pop Songs - Adult R&B Songs". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. billboard.com. Retrieved 2015-03-21.
• From Lady Gaga: "Music's Top 40 Money Makers 2012". Billboard. March 9, 2012. Retrieved November 4, 2015.
• From CeCe Peniston: "CeCe Peniston > Chart History". Billboard. (Nielsen Business Media). Retrieved 2010-09-23.
• From List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 1992: "The Top 40 Pop Songs Artists 1992-2012, From No. 40 To No. 1". billboard.com. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
• From Showgirl: The Homecoming Tour: Sexton, Paul. "Lewis, Winehouse Rule The Roost On U.K. Charts". Billboard.com. 15 January 2007. Retrieved 15 January 2007.
• From Now That's What I Call Dance Classics: Now That's What I Call Dance Classics album info. Billboard.com. Retrieved 2009-11-13.
• From The Monster Ball Tour: Herrera, Monica (October 15, 2009). "Lady Gaga Announces 'The Monster Ball'". Billboard. Retrieved October 15, 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Finally (CeCe Peniston 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/20121017154008/http://www.australian-charts.com/search.asp?search=peniston&cat=s to http://www.australian-charts.com/search.asp?search=peniston&cat=s
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629164431/http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/pettruciani/232/singles-1992.html to http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/pettruciani/232/singles-1992.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409063716/http://top30-2.radio2.be/ to http://top30-2.radio2.be/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829031641/http://charts.org.nz/search.asp?search=peniston&cat=s to http://charts.org.nz/search.asp?search=peniston&cat=s
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920020424/http://boyculture.typepad.com/boy_culture/2011/06/we-got-a-love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-thang-an-interview-with-cece-peniston.html to http://boyculture.typepad.com/boy_culture/2011/06/we-got-a-love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-thang-an-interview-with-cece-peniston.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Finally (CeCe Peniston 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://archive.is/20120530065206/http://www.divastation.com/cece_peniston/peniston_bio.html to http://www.divastation.com/cece_peniston/peniston_bio.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/ce%20ce%20peniston
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213181128/http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/90s_files/19920201.html to http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/90s_files/19920201.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Finally (CeCe Peniston 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/20110927114228/http://www.at40.com/feature/american-top-40-turns-40-remembering-1992/6221 to http://www.at40.com/feature/american-top-40-turns-40-remembering-1992/6221

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)