Talk:Collide (Leona Lewis and Avicii song)

Article history

As the song chart in the US today, I have re-opened the article with my sandbox. If you would like to view the history of my sandbox, then click here. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for future expansion

• The Sun
• Digital Spy
• Entertainment
• Idolator
• The Daily Star
• Metro
• Contact Music
• Mirror
• The Sun 2
• Contact Music 2
• Digital Spy 2
• MTV UK
• Haute Living
• Popcrush
• MTV UK 2
• MTV UK 3
• The Guardian
• Mirror 2

Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• NME

Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• The Mirror

Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• [1] Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• [2] Aaron • ^{You Da One}
• [3] Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. No convincing policy reason for excluding one artist from the title has been given. --regentspark (comment) 22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Collide (Leona Lewis song) → Collide (Leona Lewis and Avicii song) – I moved the page to this title yesterday. User:Tbhotch moved it back with the rationale that "we credit the main artist". However, the song is credited as a duet, and thus both artists would be considered the main artist. If the song were credited as "Leona Lewis featuring Avicii", that would be a different story. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Chase has not given evidence that the move is needed, or a guideline attesting the move. Also, read the history of the song, it was intended to be only by Lewis. We are not going to move their legal results here. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it was intended to be a Lewis song solely, but per the legal results it is now credited as a duet. Thus titling the article as if it is solely a Lewis song is inaccurate and misleading. Furthermore, there is no guideline supporting your position, so the argument that there's not one supporting mine is flawed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• And again I see no policy or guideline supporting you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• You clearly looked over the final part of what I said. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• If you requested the move it is your obligation to link relevant polices and guidelines to convince the participants of the discussion, as well as the closing admin, that the move is needed or not a violation of the P&G. I am not, and neither of the users that choose s/o, obligated to demostrate links. This is not a court. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As above by Tbhotch. (I swear the article was called "Collide (Leona Lewis & Avicii song" earlier?) Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Status {^talk_contribs  23:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support as the song is credited as a duet with two main artists. The article's title has nothing to do with the legal case, but the credits on the song, which is "Leona Lewis / Avicii". –anemoneprojectors– 10:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Same rationale as above. Wikispan (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per My Boo (Usher and Alicia Keys song) and Kids (Robbie Williams and Kylie Minogue song) (just a few examples of where this is used). — Status {^talk_contribs  23:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support As song is credited to both I see no reason not to include both in title, and it follows precedent set by above examples. Sanders11 (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a mouthful and unlikely ever to get searched. It makes better sense to move it to Collilde (song)? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Moving to Collide (song) would be inappropriate as there are two other articles on Wikipedia for songs called "Collide" - Collide (Howie Day song) and Collide (Krystal Meyers song). –anemoneprojectors– 13:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note the typo above, should read Collide (song) not Collilde (song) and wouldn't then be a redlink. Andrewa (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Status said it best. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 19:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Far more notable as a collaboration; People are even likely to search for this collaboration in fact. Andrewa (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support for two reasons. First, it's just common sense that if two people have been credited as contributing to a song equally, we should not just arbitrarily pick one to use in the title. Second, for consistency (one of the criteria at WP:AT) – Status has shown that it is common practice to have both artists in the title when the song is a duet and this article should be consistent with that practice. Jenks24 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tbhotch. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 19:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Collide (Leona Lewis and Avicii song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 19:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if you held off reviewing because of my brief block, but I am available to make improvements now. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 02:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't delaying the review because of that; I had some personal things to deal with in real life and I couldn't get to Wikipedia. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 04:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):
   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):
   b (citations to reliable sources):
   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):
   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Infobox

• No issues

Lead

• ...and samples his instrumental dance track called "Penguin". → Remove the word "called" for better prose
• ...Avicii claimed that Lewis and her record label, Syco, had sampling his song without his authorisation... → Replace "sampling" with "sampled"
• Before the lawsuit filed by Avicii and his record label reach the hihg court → Add was between "lawsuit" and "filed"; Fix spelling error

   Done all Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Background and release

• "Collide was written by Arash Pournouri... → Put quotes around all of "Collide"

   Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Sampling controversy

• No issues

Composition and lyrics

• According to WP:SAMPLE, audio recordings have to be less than 10% of the original recording (right now it is 24 seconds and it has to be less than 23.9 seconds)

  I don't see one millisecond as an issue tbh. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• ...from the low note of G♯3 to the high note of E♭5... → The phrase "low note of G♯3 to the high note of E♭5" should not be wiki-linked as one phrase

   Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Critical reception

• Put "Accolade" information as prose, and not in a table

  You can either use a table or use prose, like I have done in If I Never See Your Face Again. I was told either a table or prose is acceptable. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Promotion

• No issues

Track listings

• Put length of each track listed

   Done Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Credits and personnel

• No issues

Charts and certifications

• No issues

Radio and release history

• No issues

References

• No issues

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put the article on hold. There are only some minor prose issues that are keeping this article from reaching good article status. I will give you the general seven days to fix these issues and/or address issues you believe do not affect good article status. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 04:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done everything. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 1 disambiguation link [4]. Till 13:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP:SAMPLE issue needs to be addressed, even if it is by a tenth of a second; I would recommend making it 23 seconds, so you could get the most out of the music sample while still following the guidelines. As for the awards, I now see it is OK to use this in concerns to good article status, but make sure you fix the table, as it looks like it is not "closed" at the bottom. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 17:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Does an entirely new sample have to be uploaded? I'm not sure what you mean by the table not having a bottom? Looks like it to me lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For the upload, you can use the same file page, but it will have to be reuploaded so that it follows the guidelines of WP:SAMPLE. As for the other issue, I went ahead and fixed it for you; it was sort of difficult to explain what needed to be done, but you will understand once you see the correction. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 20:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SAMPLE is a rule of thumb, so one second won't make any difference to US fair use laws (as long as WP:FAIR USE is respected. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Tbhotch. I wasn't aware of the issue that you presented with WP:FAIR USE. Since all issues have been addressed now, I feel confident passing this article. Good job and keep up the good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 17:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Collide is not on the album's track listing, so...

I know this is twitter, but Leona tweeted the tracklisting to the album a few minutes ago, and Collide is not there. A different mix might be included on the deluxe version, but for the time being, it's not actually on the album. AARON• ^TALK 11:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Courtcase

Neither Lewis nor MoS (Berg's record label) were involved in the application to the court. The case was listed as Tim Berg and Another v Simco Ltd. t/a Syco (Another refers to Ash Pournouri). There was no direct sampling of Penguin. The comment from Ash Pournouri confirms that this was a "copy" (i.e. created from scratch by Sandy Vee) and not a sample. Indeed if it had been a sample then MoS would be involved in any proceedings as this would have been a breach of mechanical copyright which the record company would have an interest in. In a later interview Tim Berg stated that there had been some confusion over the licensing of the rights. Syco had approached him directly for permission and he had refused. However without his knowledge Syco had then obtained a license directly from his publisher (EMI Publishing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.190.78 (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your point is? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-album single

Now that the song is officially not included on Glassheart, and is just there in the form of one of its several remixes (Afrojack's), I think it's safe to call this a non-album single. It was initially planned to be released as the album's lead single, but the album has since went through many changes and that is no longer true. "Louboutins" is a similar situation, except that "Louboutins" was released on Love? in no way shape or form. Zac  11:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd leave it as an album single. Cause not even a remix of "Louboutins" features on the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sampling

This article needs tidying up. Critics thought that the song sampled "Penguin" which was the original name for the intrumental track by Avicii. When vocals were added, that song was renamed "Fade into Darkness". Avicii's lawsuit wasn't that Lewis had sampled his song "Penguin", it was that he had obtained permission to same Simon Jeffes song for his own work and that he was looking for a vocalist. Syco heard the song and reproduced the same sample with Sandy Vee. The actual sample credit per the album booklet is actually "Perpetuum Mobile", as written and performed by Simon Jeffes. This whole thing needs clarfying in the article. Its a very confusing read. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay well if you want to do that section then.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The range

The vocal range for this song is false. Anyone who can separate pitches can sit down with a piano and can hear that the lowest note is a G#3 not F4, she also hits multiple Bb4 in the verses. musicnotes.com is very often wrong with their pitches. It's not a reliable source for composition section. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 21:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collide (Leona Lewis and Avicii 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/20130601132218/http://www.grammy.com/nominees?genre=30 to http://www.grammy.com/nominees?genre=30

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)