Talk:We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Mixed"?

Alright, should the reviews section say that the song received mixed reviews or mixed to positive reviews?

Okay IP I'm stepping in, apparently there has been a consensus about the country mix of the song. It doesn't count, all of us know there is a country version of the song but that is how it goes. I was streaming along wikipedia on Josh's laptop, which doesn't have Wikipedia blocked, and I see this and I know Toa and he is pretty good at keep things straight. So I'd personally say drop it. Granted I don't agree with not adding a genre when proof is out there but you will have to bow out of this. Thanks. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 17:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)== There is a country version of the song. ==

So I see no reason for country not to be a genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

First off, the mix is not even available for download. Second, no critic has reviewed the mix - the main and only available download of the mix is the 'Pop' mix, and that is the one we cover. It simply isn't a major mix and most radio mixes aren't notable. The country version, as a remix, is not notable enough for a separate genre note. Finally, you have no RS to actually prove the mix is country. The mix is marketed to country radio but nobody has reviewed it to define it as such. Toa Nidhiki05 22:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As dull as that all sounds it's a week argument, you acknowledge there is a country' mix and that it has been released to country radio but yet does not have enough to posted that makes no sense and is a weak argument to get your way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. People release remixes all the time. "Somebody That I Used to Know" had ten dance remixes and topped the dance charts (both club and radio) because of it, but that doesn't make it a dance song. Same thing here - the country version is a remix, and we don't cover remixes in the infobox. Toa Nidhiki05 17:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Weak agrument and because you will not recognize country genre the country radio release has been and should remained removed until country is acknowledged by wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it should not. The fact a remix of the song was released to that format is cited and accurate. The idea that the song itself is country, however, is not. Toa Nidhiki05 17:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

According to you you do not recognize or acknowledge the country genre so anything about country should not exist. If it is released to country radio it is a country song just cause some reviewers reviewed the pop mix does not make it false only you Wikieditors want to make it false by making weak agruments by saying it doesn't exist when it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because a song is released to a radio format does not make it that genre. Cross-genre appeal to songs is common in the industry and remixes are often issued to aid in promotion. You do not have any reliable sources that confirm 'country' or 'country pop' as a genre and we go by verifiability, not truth here. Removing valid content is not constructive and I will ask you to stop. Toa Nidhiki05 17:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a source it is released to country radio ergo making it a country song you don't want to acknowledge that cause of some stupid reivewers that is your problem but you wikipedia editors shouldn't push your beliefs on others that is just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That does not make the song country. You are edit warring and if you keep reverting to add this unsourced information you may be blocked. The song itself, as said by reviewers, is not country. I'm not pushing anything - we go by RS, not truth here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay IP I'm stepping in, apparently there has been a consensus about the country mix of the song. It doesn't count, all of us know there is a country version of the song but that is how it goes. I was streaming along wikipedia on Josh's laptop, which doesn't have Wikipedia blocked, and I see this and I know Toa and he is pretty good at keep things straight. So I'd personally say drop it. Granted I don't agree with not adding a genre when proof is out there but you will have to bow out of this. Thanks. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 17:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is a consensus, but myself and another editor (Status) have removed it for lacking a source that confirms it as country. Per our policy on citing sources, if a claim that is challenged or is likely to be challenged is presented, a reliable source needs to be presented to confirm it. That's what the real issue boils down to - there is no objective, third-party review that defines it as country. Almost every review has noted it as being a pop song, while the Slant article defined it as 'bubblegum pop'. I have not heard the country mix (and that would not play any real role in adding or removing it, since I am not a RS), but it hasn't been released for download and hasn't been reviewed, meaning there hasn't been an objective, third-party look at it either. If it stays as a radio mix, it is unlikely it will ever get such a review. So really there isn't any source to define it as country and so it shouldn't be included as such, since genres need sources to confirm they are in fact of that genre. If some RS does review the country, than it should most likely be added to the composition section, where a more in-depth coverage of the country mix can and should be added. We could all debate on whether to add it to the infobox at that point, but at this point there is no citation and thus it should not be added. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you both. It is a country song too and if you do not like it then stop editing on wikipedia it is not fair of you to push your beliefs on others that is wrong so just get over yourself acknowledge that it is a country song and get over it.

That is not very civil, I would suggest you remove it. I've noted that if you want to add it as 'country' you need to find a citation that defines it as such and a radio release is not proof - Taylor regularly releases her singles to Pop, Adult Contemporary, and Hot Adult Contemporary radio. Billboard has said this is even being promoted to rhythmic radio, so should we add 'R&B' as a genre? Of course not. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey what did I do? I was being nice to you IP don't go cussing at me! ^_^ Swifty*^talk 18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way Toa. I can see that you and Zach removed it LOL! You've known me how long now? I know how Wikipedia works and either way you and Zach did have consensus on it and do not agree that the country genre should be added. So both are right LOL! ^_^ Swifty*^talk 18:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, you are JamesAlan1986? I knew I remembered you from somewhere. :P

Ah, just wasn't sure you saw that on the talk through all the reverts. He and I didn't ever discuss it here so I wouldn't call it a 'proper' consensus but we do agree, nonetheless. At this point however I'm going to leave this article alone for a few days - regardless of the IP adding the claim again, I have been acting like I own this article and that is not good thing at all. Toa Nidhiki05 18:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep! ^_^ Glad you remembered. And for now I have hidden it until a source is found. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 18:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That fine sorry for cussing.

When citing sources...

I would like to remind all editors to please note that when citing sources please source them correctly. Be sure that you always add the author and that you have the correct publishers listed. The current way the references looks is accurate to my knowledge.

Also I'd like to remind editors that we need to check sources to be sure they exist. I checked the Australian chart that was cited here and the page said it didn't exist. What was that? I am currently looking for a source to reinstate it so give me some time. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 20:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This song has not charted in the UK (yet). Source. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 18:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100

This song has only peaked at 72 so far. People placed it at number one based on a reviewers guess. This source clearly states:

After entering the Billboard Hot 100 at No. 72 last week, "Never" could rocket to No. 1 this week following its first sales frame and first full week of airplay. With its projected digital sales of 600,000 or more, and building airplay ("Never" bowed at No. 25 on Radio Songs last week with 40 million in audience, according to BDS, after less than two full days of airplay), the song should soar to the Hot 100's top five, at least.

I would once again ask that editors please double check sources so we do not post false information. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 19:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's official, it debuts at number one. Toa Nidhiki05 19:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That was not presented prior to another IP address that was the problem Toa the source above was the one posted originally. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 20:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. :) Toa Nidhiki05 (iPod) (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Release date

I was on here checking sources and found that the song was actually released to Google Play the day before iTunes or Amazon.com got it so I corrected all information to state that and put the actual release date as August 13 instead of August 14 cause the song was actually released a day earlier then we thought. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 16:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Chart sources that don't validate what's listed

I've started a discussion at WT:CHARTS regarding the addition of unverified chart positions based on the sources presented. If this is "common practice", it is unacceptable common practice as a violation of WP:V. You either provide the verified source or you wait until the source that {{singlechart}} uses gets updated. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a flaw, which is why I don't use the template that often. I'd much rather discuss it here, obviously, but it isn't some massive error - we'd have to change the citations every three or four days, basically. Toa Nidhiki05 18:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally see no reason for this to be an issue if it is going to show up in the next day or two, I'd have an issues if it was say a week to a month but just a few days seems to me that that is making too much of a big deal and drama out of something and Star I think it is a little unfair of you to go and start this discussion outside of the talk page here just to get you're way you are starting to show to me that you are one of those Wikipedians that when something you don't like comes up you'll go and do whatever to get your way. It seems to me that it is advisable for you to drop the stick and not edit on this particular article anymore as you have already caused me problems trying to bring something up to me I had nothing to do with and told you how to handle and you were smart enough to drop it but now you are doing this to Toa. That's not right man. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 18:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Heaven forbid I cause you and Toa problems. And let's just ignore WP:V because a source will be updated in a couple days anyway. What is the harm in waiting until the source can be verified? By using the template, which isn't mandatory by any means, you change the chart position once a week when the source page is updated. Eventually, the song is going to reach its peak and it won't matter. Unfortunately, editors like User:Easy4me just want to be the first to update chart positions and, in his case, he has a history of neglecting to properly source the changes. When you revert changes that cannot be verified by the given source, you become part of the problem. Because this issue of sourcing is not limited to this article, I took it to WP:CHARTS. I'm not going to have a one-sided conversation with a bunch of fanboys; I'd rather take it to more knowledgeable and neutral Wikipedians. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You were told twice now to bring things up to the talk page that is what my message is about. I think it is unfair of you to go outside of the talk page when you were advised to bringing to the talk page (again) to clear up the issue but you ran to something else to get your way. That isn't right and not how things work on here. Easy did nothing wrong as far as I or Toa are concerned, you on the other hand have stepped out of line. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Star, I'm not a fanboy, stop calling me that. It isn't a nice term and isn't correct. I'm just as interested in neutrality as you are and that means posting the correct chart positions - if you find it so offensive, why don't you just give the right citation instead of removing correct information? Doesn't that solve the issue right there? Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Toa, there is no reason for you not to be able to update the source yourself, you're just lazy and don't want to and want to push people into arguments and cause problems. and I should report you to the ANI for this and your name calling. But I think I will take this to someone else myself. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 18:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Swifty, you are hilarious. So someone who looks something up, decides to change reliably sourced information on Wikipedia without providing an updated source and thus failing WP:verifiability, one of the core content policies, is not lazy? While it seems you two believe that it's okay to put anything on Wikipedia as long as you know it's true but you don't have to prove it, and if someone else complains about that, he's lazy for not fixing it. That isn't right and not how things work on here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Back away slowly and stop editing on this article, all you have done is caused problems. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 17:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes

I do not understand the inclusion of the succession boxes in this article. Their purpose is to navigate between other number-one songs and yet they are not used on any of the other number-one songs from those same charts to navigate back. In fact, these have been pretty much phased out for this purpose since January 2011 following a lengthy discussion taken to RFC here. Not one other article since that time for the three charts shown here (Canadian Hot 100, Billboard Hot 100 and New Zealand Top 40) use them, so what point is it to have them in this article? The "commercial performance" section tells us in prose that it went to #1 on these charts, the chart table tells us it went to #1 on these charts, why do we need to be told a third time, pretty much bordering on WP:UNDUE. Other articles, like Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.), just use a "see also" section with links to the other lists for those who are actually interested in other songs that went to number one on those charts (rather than just a link to unrelated songs). Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously beating a dead horse? This subject died two days ago and I am seriously had about enough of you causing problems on this page. You just need to back away slowly and stop editing on this article, all you have done is caused problems. Just because you don't like what you see on the page doesn't mean it's a problem and that's exactly what you are turning this stuff into. Go edit somewhere else okay? It'd be best cause you're starting to disruptive editor and if that box is on here so what? Get over it and move on. Please go edit somewhere else thanks. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 17:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. First you say to discuss it on the talk page, but when I do it's being disruptive? I give time to discuss the verifiability issue, and when I return to another topic, it's beating a dead horse? Take the "fanboy" comment out and I haven't done anything that can be considered disruptive. Why do you refuse to discuss this rationaly based on the precedent and policy that I have presented. While I admit no formal consensus has been reached to completely remove these things, but since there was an RFC about this, and they are rarely added to articles anymore, this needs to be discussed on individual talk pages whether they should be included with policy-based reasoning. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your beef with succession boxes. It's not a big deal, frankly, and doesn't do anything to hurt the article - if anything, it improves them. Other stuff exists and it doesn't really matter what any other page is doing. Toa Nidhiki05 18:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the precise reason it was added to this article. It wouldn't have been added here if someone didn't see it on another article. There is obviously strong disagreement whether they improve the article or not among editors per the RFC in January 2011. I don't understand why people who are indifferent about them want to defend them so. In terms of this article, if someone disagrees with an addition to the article it means there is no consensus to have it on this article. So maybe we can get consensus first on whether it should be included in this article. I don't mind opening up another RFC to help bring resolution to this from the community. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a silly argument - should we remove infoboxes because other articles use them? You misunderstand the policy - you were arguing that since other pages supposedly don't use them, this shouldn't. It just doesn't stack up - there simply isn't a reason to remove this other than that you appear to dislike it. Toa Nidhiki05 19:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I dislike them too. They're ugly, trivial, and clutter up the bottom of the article. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Mixed review on video

I looked up the definition of demeanor and Jim Farber's review is a mix of positive and negative as he clearly states her tone and demeanor (or behavior) in the video is "conversational and sarcastic" which makes it a mixed review and even though there is more positive then negative it's still received mixed reviews so if you see anymore changes to the video's review back to positive please change it back to "mixed". Thanks. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 18:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there no reviews that say how its a complete rip-off of Michel Gondry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.50.138 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Swifty: You're misinterpreting the article -- "Like the single, Swift's tone and demeanor in the clip is conversational and sarcastic, ideally suited to simulating intimacy with her massive teen girl fan-base" should be interpreted here as "Swift acts in a conversational and sarcastic manner." Stating a video has some sarcastic/conversational elements does not indicate that it is in anyway negative; the author is stating that the role that Taylor Swift plays is a particular role. In fact, the article here quoted does not seem to be a review at all; rather, it is a gossip page article regarding the identity of the former boyfriend that the song is allegedly about. L.cash.m (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Commercial performance at country radio

Regarding the Hot Country Songs chart performance of "We Are Never Ever ... ," whereby the song's No. 13 debut being its peak position is pointed out, I wonder if it would be appropriate or notable to state that the song did spend several weeks in the top 20 (after falling from its peak in the song's second week on the chart) before descending further? That might shed some light and provide a little more background/context on the song's non-acceptance at country radio, and whatever conclusion the reader draws would not be up to us.[[Briguy52748 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)]]

It's lack of success on country radio is pretty important - I would note that it debuted so high due to hourly plays on Clear Channel Communications stations, that it dropped (to number 18 or 19, I think) back the following week after the plays stopped, and that it never again reached its peak. It would also be important to note this is her first single to miss the top ten of the country chart entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The article did already state that the song had missed the top 10. I guess my question was, before beginning its descent "for good" (for lack of a better term), the song had hung around in the top 20 for a few weeks -- was that notable enough to state in the article? [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)]]

I think it would be notable only in the context of how it related to other songs; if, for instance, it stayed in the top 20 longer than any other song (or close to as long) then it would be significant. However, I suppose this is moot as the listing seems to say that it did eventually obtain number 1 status. L.cash.m (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It actually is important in this case because it would have missed the top ten entirely were it not for a rule change that allowed pop airplay, streaming, and sales to count. Toa Nidhiki05 20:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That creates an interesting case, then -- one I'm not familiar with the rules on. If a change in the rules has an impact on chart performance, should it really be listed on the page for the song that is impacted, or should information about the rules remain on the page dealing specifically with charts? *added* after all, all songs going forth from the chart change will be impacted as well; would it be necessary to notate on each song's article that they were impacted by the change? L.cash.m (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It could be on either, but it is important to note on this page because the song would have been Taylor's first to miss the country top ten. Instead, it is topping the country chart entirely off the strength of pop radio play and digital sales. As far as I am concerned, that is like saying a song topped the Hot 100 because of high digital sales - important background information for a song. Toa Nidhiki05

song length

updated song length to match time shown by iTunes; please don't revert without explaining reason for revision here first L.cash.m (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Different players and different stores frequently will display the length of the exact same MP3 file as being one second different in length, and that can show as being one second different than the official CD track length, which can, again, display as being one second different in different CD players. There's probably no more useless edit to perform than changing a track length by one second. Whatever you are changing it to is probably just as wrong as what it already was.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the edit is useless, I just want to establish a consensus so it stops being changed -- there have been multiple random edits (back and forth) on the time, and the vast majority of them haven't involved me. L.cash.m (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)