Talk:Angeleyes
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Angeleyes.jpg
edit
Image:Angeleyes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Chart Controversy
editThe 'controversy' is garbage - nonsense. 'Angeleyes'/Voulez-Vous' reached No.3 in the BMRB Chart - used by the BBC etc. However, it is garbage to say that it failed to rise above No.9 in other Sales Charts. It reached No.5 in both the 'New Musical Express' & 'Melody Maker' Charts. I ought to know - I still have those Charts from that time! So, to imply that the Single caused 'controversy', by making the Top 5 in the BMRB/BBC Chart, just did not happen - it also reached the Top 5 in the other Charts.....82.22.122.117 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think the 'controversy' has been overstated, but there definitely was 'confusion' and Capital Radio did indeed comment on it, more than once on air. It seems it was a 'beef' they had that they found either interesting or annoying or both. As far as I recall now, I think the issue was more that the track had peaked at around #5 on most singles charts published at the time and had started to fall, whereas on the 'official' BBC chart, it continued to rise, going up to #3 the week after it had fallen to around #9 elsewhere. Being #9 and falling on a couple of charts, but being #3 and rising on another is worthy of note as controversial I would think, or at the very least, confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.128.162.70 (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)