Wikipedia

Talk:Beautiful Liar/Archive 1

< Talk:Beautiful Liar
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

TURKISH belly dancing??

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there a source that says that it is Turkish belly dancing? Belly dancing is not Turkish unless the style is actually Turkish, otherwise it's most likely Arabic! & the writing on the walls is not Arabic, it is ancient Phoenician. 211.30.60.106 03:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

HOt digital song and track

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Beyonce has hit #1 on both...please add...which is a rare feat... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beyondce728 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Charts

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

The song is in her second week in the Billboard Hot 100 not in her third week.--Waxo159 21:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to give the chart positions for minor charts? Is there some special reason to add Swedish (or Lithuanian) charts? If we add all of them, then most articles on albums and singles are going to be a mass of indigestible chart statistics. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Swedish Singles Chart is actually one of the more major music markets, along with the Swiss Singles Chart and the Dutch Top 40. Since it has only appeared in a few countries anyway, I think that any national chart on which it has appeared should be listed, and the smaller ones like the Lithuanian Singles Chart, South African Singles Chart, etc. can be removed once it starts charting in more places. ShadowHalo 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Information that's significant enough to go into an encyclopædia article can't become insignificant just because other information turns up. Moreover, do you have sources for your claims about the Swedish and Dutch charts? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. For example, an article about an unreleased album is going to have more detail about the conception and writing process for the album since there isn't much more information available. Once the album has been released and has passed through the charts, much of that information will be condensed to avoid going into unnecessary detail. It's the same here. We should include information but start removing as necessary when it goes into unnecessary detail. Regarding the notability of the charts, there's not exactly a list of the music markets in order of notability; we're pretty much stuck with how much coverage each gets, and most sites that have chart information include Sweden (unlike Lithuania, South Africa, or often Japan). ShadowHalo 23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What is your basis for these claims? In the meantime, I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you're asking about sites that list these, [1] and [2] both have chart information from various countries, including Sweden and the Netherlands, but don't include Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, etc. ShadowHalo 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean that you make claims about what will/does/should happen to articles on unreleasd albums, and go on to use that as an argument for what should happen here. What's the basis of your claims about the former? (A basis for your claims about the significance of Sweish and Dutch charts would also be useful, though.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the diff at Katharine McPhee (album). There was information about individual tracks that had been released. This was notable at the time since some songs had been released but others hadn't. Now that all the songs are available, there's no point in stating how each one has been released. Regarding the Swedish and Dutch music markets, the World music market article lists both in the top ten for singles (Sweden: #9, Netherlands: #7). I'd guess this is pretty accurate, though the source for the data does need to be found. ShadowHalo 01:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, every single chart is important, not only the Billboard Hot 100 and the UK singles chart. So I think that is important to give the most chart positions as it's possible. Artist like Beyoncé and Shakira are successful worldwide.--McMare's 07:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No, not every chart position is important. The article is supposed to give an overview of how the song performed. Adding countries like Malta doesn't give the reader any better understanding and just makes the already large chart and infobox even larger. ShadowHalo 11:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Malta, Faroe Islands, etc. are markets as well, i don't think it should be referenced, but at least they should be mentioned. --McMare's 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by McMare's (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
How does that benefit the reader in any way? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or in this case, chart positions. ShadowHalo 19:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I believe small markets are important, because every market contribute to the worldwide success that artists like Beyoncé and Shakira have. But i'm not talking about collecting information, because I know it's a basic rule and I will be breaking it. I want to help... I don't know, for example, articles like "Hips Don't Lie" or "Hung Up", which provide information about massive worldwide hits, name those little markets... So I think it's lighter work to add that information now, and when "Beautiful Liar" will start to fall from those little markets' charts, we'll quit them from the chart boxes, and leaving only the Top Ten peak positions. --McMare's 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Countries like Malta and the Faroe Islands contribute nearly nothing to these artists' success. Neither country makes up even one-thousandth of the world singles market. Hips Don't Lie and Hung Up provide no sources for most of their chart positions and in a month, neither will this article. Most of these links show the countries' current chart, meaning that in a month, there will be no way to verify the majority of this information, and it'll all have to be removed anyway. Simply put, the article is supposed to give an overview of the song's chart performance. Adding these countries simply makes the Chart performance section too huge to see the bigger picture and just make the tables huge and unwieldy. If you think these minor music markets should be included, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Record charts; regardless, the guideline makes it clear that these countries don't help the articles at all. ShadowHalo 03:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I forgot answering here. I don't even remember what we were originally discussing, but it's ok, I'll add the information that I personally think is useful, and then you'll check it out. Right?

Bidet tour

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is the B'Day tour just for number ones, or for number twos as well? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, that made me laugh 77.96.160.126 18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Owned. Look at how many countries it has charted at number 1. Owned. 211.30.60.106 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess you don't know what "bidet" and/or "number two" mean, in which case you are the one who is "owned" :D Extraordinary Machine 21:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I put a protection on the page cause there was alot of vandelism. Every line was edit with this sign infront: -. I had to clean it up. According to the history an unknown editer did this so I protected it.

The references isn't right or are missing. Please clean this up.

(Electric Storm89 15:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

You didn't protect the article; all you did was add the {{sprotected2}} template. If you think the page should be protected, you can put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ShadowHalo 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious myself. Is the song "and" or "featuring" Shakira?

It's "And" because it's a duet... The singles say "Beyoncé & Shakira", not "Beyoncé featuring Shakira".McMare's 22:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The latter part of this sentence makes no sense: It is the first song and the first single released from the deluxe edition of Beyoncé's second studio album B'Day, making it the fifth song (fourth outside the U.S.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarxide (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

For Future Expansion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bipasha

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
It is really very similar. Do you know this singer? My love is love (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
She is an actress. :P I know her very well. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Genre

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User @Jean70000: readded the genre Cumbia two times to the infobox of the article despite no source to support his claims. I reverted him twice but he added it again and I did not want to break the rules about reverting a user three times. I think that you should discuss it here. I Am... ***D.D. 02:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The song has contributions from Cumbia to 2:24 minutes to 2:35.--Jean70000 (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You have to provide a reliable source for that. Something like a newspaper, website, a book that confirms that. Otherwise it is WP:OR. And please stop adding it again if you don't find a source. I Am... ***D.D. 22:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Beautiful Liar. 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:

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) 13:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Beautiful Liar

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 Beautiful Liar'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 "FIMI":

  • From Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana: "FIMI – Profilo" (in Italian). Federation of the Italian Music Industry. Retrieved 17 August 2011.
  • From Live at Wembley (Beyoncé album): "Archivio - DVD Musicali" (in Italian). Federation of the Italian Music Industry. March 29 – April 4, 2010. Retrieved December 28, 2011.

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⚡ 21:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Beautiful Liar. 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:

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) 13:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beautiful Liar. 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:

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) 20:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beautiful_Liar/Archive_1&oldid=1136556723"