Talk:Crazy in Love/Archive 1

Archive 1

Does this article still meet "good article" criteria?

I'm concerned that this article may need to have its "good article" status reassessed unless someone would like to perform some edits to bring it back to proper good article form. I am of the opinion that it is no longer "clear and concise" - it is exceptionally long, and the prose has become clunky in some sections. Furthermore, it has undergone some edits that have introduced grammatical errors and stylistic issues. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skpearman (talk • contribs) 04:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Someone might try to straighten out things. --Efe (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Respected Skpearman, since YOU are the one who added the template, can you care to point out a few issues in details? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, sorry that I wasn't more specific. It's not a *bad* article, it just needs a little bit of attention to return to its former glory, and I happened to notice it but am just not the person with the knowledge or time to do it myself. Normally I'd prefer to do the edits myself instead of inserting the template, but there are surely people with more of the necessary time and knowledge in this case. So I'll point out the specific things I see:

• First of all, the article no longer fits the conciseness criteria. It seems unnecessarily long, and some sections are organized in a way that make the information quite overwhelming. Some of the extreme length may come from the large number of quotations from music critics and other figures. Some of these are clearly worth including, and all may arguably be relevant, but the most important information in the article is lost in the sea of quotations and details.
• Some of the most noticeable problems are in the "Recognitions and Accolades" and "Chart Performance" sections. The chart performance information that should be presented in charts/tables... and in fact, a lot of it is, at the end of the article. Why is there a paragraph-form section for chart performance (section 5) *and* an extensive set of tables containing information about chart performance (section 10)? This is repetitive and unnecessary, and section 5 could be scrapped and its information incorporated into section 10. The "Recognitions and Accolades" section would also be better presented in a table or some other non-paragraph format. The current format does not present the information in a clear, concise, accessible way.
• Comparing this article to Featured Articles about pop songs can demonstrate all of these points. For an example, see this Featured Article about another Beyoncé song: "Baby Boy" (Beyoncé Knowles song). (You can see from looking at those articles that Featured Articles about songs, even songs more famous than this one, are usually quite a bit shorter than this article.)
• The article is in pretty good condition in terms of copyediting, but a grammar stickler with more time on his/her hands than I have needs to go through and edit for comma errors and the like. I also saw a broken wikilink in there somewhere. The errors I saw were relatively minor, but there were enough of them to be worth noting. This step should come after any editing for conciseness and organization anyway.

Skpearman (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The grammar thing you pointed out may be right but the rest is meaningless. (No offense intended). It seems clear to me that you do not heavily edit articles released to songs and that you have never a song article neither ot GA nor FA. Watch (Put it in you watch-list) this page please because i am going to contact a few editors to respond to some of the issues you pointed out. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 06:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And it is perfectly normal for GAs or even FAs to have broken links. They just need to be replaced. It has never been said in Wikipedia that a GA or an FA cannot contain broken links. It may happen that you promote an article today and tomorrow a link appears to be broken. These are normal things. They just need to be replaced. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 06:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs some copy edit and grammar correction. There is also a links to 1 disambiguation page and 1 dead link that needs to be fixed. However, there are a few issues that Skpearman noted that aren't necessary. The "Recognitions and Accolades" sub-section looks almost the same as "Accolades and legacy" of Mariah's "Vision of Love". The sections are also correctly organized, and contain images in appropriate sections. I think it still meets the GA criteria; the issues that I pointed out just need to be fixed. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 10:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with Jivesh. I really don't see problems with the mentioned sections. They look both good to me. However, I must say the article needs some good copy-editing. Some sentences look very much like a POV/magazine text. By my opinion, a c/e would be great for the article and than can stay a GA. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Respected Skpearman, i want to tell you that your comment regarding the article size has no ground here. "Crazy in Love" was Beyonce's debut single (taken from her first studio album). Consequently, it gained much attention both critically and commercially. That is why its critical reception and chart performance sections are so big. It was critically acclaimed. You can read the reviews. If you find them overwhelming, there is nothing that can be done. I do not think Wikipedia is the right place to complain about those reviews.

Comparing it to "Baby Boy" is even more ... (i cannot get the word). If you follow how the music industry works, you will know that when you have a first single which is massive, the second (at least if not the third and fourth) is bound to attain more immediate success. May be that's why the chart performance of "Baby Boy" looks quite small in size. Moreover, as far as i know (because i spend much time doing research about Beyonce), "Crazy in Love" was the one which appeared on the Best Songs of the 2000s Decade list of many media, and not "Baby Boy".

Now coming to your comment about the conversion of the prose to tables... Articles related to music are not formatted the same ways as articles related to cities, newspapers or nutrients. All (decent) music articles have both prose and tables. "Baby Boy" (which you mention) has both, being an FA like the rest.

The broken link has been removed. It stopped working only recently. I think you do not know that that website was converted or something like that. So any information that was there is lost permanently. So, i removed the link. And the copy-edit has already started. Thanks for coming here and placing that tag. That helped to improve the article and place it on the right track again. However, "Crazy in Love" is not the only GA on Wikipedia that have these issues. With all the respect i owe to you, i do not believe it was necessary to put that tag there,. You could have left a comment on the talk-page or even found out who are the major contributors and leave then a message. There are many more and while the issues here were minor ones, you will find major ones in ones. Thank you very much. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am removing your template now. The c/e has been done by an excellent copy-editor and i mean it he is really excellent. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It was removed by the copy-editor himself when he finished. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 12:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

wow someone spent a heck of a time writing up the chart performance - how many of its weeks at that and that coincided w/ that an that album! impressive - utterly useless, but magnificently impressive :P

-artaxerxes333

This Song Is A Cover

It Was Recorded In The Fourties By http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUx_Wjx_2ek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.69.25 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't say this often as I find it unprofessional on wikipedia, but you are an idiot. That band is a modern-day band that specializes in 40's-STYLE music. Not actual 1940s music. They covered this song in 2007 much later than Beyonce's version. Kiwisoup (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Vocal Range

I must correct! She goes up to F5, not just D5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VN07 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First message

Beck has covered Crazy in Love in his live shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.252.85 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I've placed this as a sample article at RfC (regarding disagreements over table formatting), and created a discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the song by Beyoncé. The article about the song by Eminem can be found at Crazy in Love (Eminem song).

What about the Conway Twitty song?

Image

I don't believe this image qualifies as fair use when taking into consideration that it does not support the text in any way. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not number one in Canada

Unlike the anonymous contributer claims, Beyoncé's "Crazy in Love" never reached number one in Canada. Perhaps it did on the BDS Airplay chart (which I'm unaware of), but according to http://jam.canoe.ca/, http://www.mariah-charts.com/chartdata/PDestinysChild.htm, and the currently inactive Top 40 charts, the song peaked at number two for a single week. Please do not revert unless you find a different source, however, since Jam Canoe claims it did not reach number one in Canada, I doubt another reference would be sincere. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why can't I include reviews for singles like the review for albums in the pages?

Singles Reviews

Why can't I include reviews for singles like the review for albums in the pages?

Is the "music and structure" section necessary?

Is it? Stopitplease92 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. Any decent article about a song should describe the song. Really, the section should be expanded. ShadowHalo 09:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, actually, it shouldn't. Where do some of you Wikipedians get ideas like this?

Too Bloody Long

This article is excessively long, for a relatively recent, four-minute pop song that hasn't yet proven to be of any particular cultural significance, or longevity.

• SNAP! I AGREE.

Overseas Editions

Just an FYI for possible inclusion -- An alternative version of this song was included on the Asian releases of Dangerously in Love that featured a rap in Mandarin by Vanness Wu. Info at Sony Taiwan's site.[[1]] - Hamuhamu (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yah. There is. Its even featured on the Beyonce: Live at Wembley VCDs that were released here in Phil. --Efe (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding it. I can't believe, in this long, long article, no one could be bothered to include the fact that an entire hemisphere listened to & bought a different version of the song. =P --Hamuhamu (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced

After the completion of "Crazy in Love", record company advisers suggested to Beyoncé that she return to "Naughty Girl" as the lead single from her forthcoming album. It was believed that "Naughty Girl" would probably be a success, and a safe choice, allowing Beyoncé to convey the sexy persona that she had established with Destiny's Child; moreover, the general style, together with a well-known hook from Donna Summer's "Love to Love You Baby", was considered to be more commercial in sound than other songs Beyoncé had recorded for the album. "Crazy in Love" was seen as more of a gamble, and both the aggressive sound and attitude were somewhat different from Beyoncé's previous work.

Beyoncé insisted on moving ahead with "Crazy in Love", however, and although confident that the song was the correct choice, she felt that it might not perform well on urban charts. Like most of Jay-Z's guest raps, the verse was recorded from memory, and provided a contrast to Beyoncé's more elegant vocal style. Beyoncé hoped that the combination would allow her to move beyond Destiny's Child's reputation of pop-R&B, and as the deadline for the single's release approached, she submitted the final mixed version of the song.

This content is very much important and substantial, however, it is completely unsourced so if someone knows where this information was taken, please discuss it here. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bronson, Fred (2003, 5th ed.). The Billboard Book of Number One Hits. New York: Billboard Books. ISBN 0-8230-7677-6 — more information on the creation of "Crazy in Love" Who knows what informations are written in here? Its going to be helpful. --Efe (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dance Pop?

This song is a dance tune and was very very popular at the time of release so I'm adding the pop dance genre! If you have any objetions please say why! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seán Travers (talk • contribs) 17:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Number 1 single/album feat

It's incorrect to say that Beyonce was the second female artist to acheive the number 1 single/album double in the UK after Kylie Minogue. Barbara Streisand, Madonna, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey and Celine Dion all did it before Kylie: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1033465&c=1 Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.98.251 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've been looking for a source to support the claim. --Efe (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Music and lyrics" section is incorrect

The description of the chords in the song is wrong, as is the accompanying graphic. The hook of the song features not a G major chord but a G minor chord. (Since the song is in D minor, G minor is the appropriate iv chord. Also, at several points during the song, the upper vocal track harmonizes with a B-flat over the G chord to reinforce the fact that it is a minor chord.) Zutano (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Crazy in Love music sheet.png

"Crazy in Love" is built in B♭ and G major chords.

"Background" issues

In the "Background section, third paragraph, first sentence. A person named "Hilson" is referred to. Who is this?? | ^help_dןǝɥ | 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

An IP who adores Keri Hilson might have re-added that. Jivesh boodhun (talk / Make sure you give 4 a try!!!) 04:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

To be added

"Crazy in Love" was performed on US X-Factor on October 14, 2011. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 11:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How? The live shows haven't started? Or is this for judges houses? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 11:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Saw it here. It is average (not to say bad). ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 11:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I thought it was really bad. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 11:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Children In Need: Newsreaders take on Beyonce and challenge Diversity to a hilarious dance-off

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1229684/Children-In-Need-Newsreaders-Beyonce-challenge-Diversity-hilarious-dance-off.html

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Another cover + Reliable source needed

• [2]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Another cover

• [3]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you know...

Former RichGirl member, Brave, recently launched her solo-website, and in the biography of the site she revealed that her and Rich Harrison had worked on "Crazy in Love" together for that was a track designated for her project, however Harrison released Brave from his contact under Columbia Records.

The question now is: Should this be included in the article, cause it's a bit of important information regarding the history of this timeless and generation-defining song. SOURCE 68.161.181.233 (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Pop not R&B (read the whole thing)

http://stereogum.com/826992/vh1-100-greatest-songs-of-the-00s/top-stories/lead-story/ Beggsie221 (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Another cover version

• [4]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Already done. :D My love is love (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

COVER IN FILME "Great Gatsby" - Usage in media

"soundtrack will also features new renditions of pop classics including the Bryan Ferry Orchestra and Emeli Sandé's new take on Beyoncé's "Crazy in Love"

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/great-gatsby-soundtrack-features-jay-z-andre-3000-beyonce-lana-del-rey-20130404 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

hello??????? why anyone update this??!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC) ^

!!!???????????

Emeli

• http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2013-04-30/emeli-sande-takes-crazy-in-love-back-to-the-roaring-twenties-on-gatsby-soundtrack/
• http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/04/listen-to-emeli-sande-and-bryan-ferry-orchestras-cover-of-beyonces-crazy-in-love/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/crazy-in-love-gatsby-cover-emelie-sande_n_3186627.html
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/crazy-in-love-gatsby-cover-emelie-sande_n_3186627.html
• http://www.rap-up.com/2013/04/30/new-music-emeli-sande-the-bryan-ferry-orchestra-crazy-in-love/
• http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/04/30/crazy-in-love-gatsby/
• http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/30/emeli-sande-unveils-jazz-cover-of-crazy-in-love-for-the-great-gatsby-soundtrack-3708467/

Requested move 17 December 2014

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. --BDD (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Crazy in Love (Beyoncé song) → Crazy in Love
• Crazy in Love → Crazy in Love (disambiguation)

– The Beyoncé song is the primary topic. Its article received 37,000 views in the last 90 days – nearly 5 times as many views as all of the other Crazy in Love articles combined. (The factor increases to nearly 19 when Mozart and the Whale, a film known only in select territories as Crazy in Love, and Crazy In Love (Will & Grace), a redirect with negligible views, are excluded.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:Naming conventions (music). If we were running a pop chart where the prize was deleting Beyonce, Lady Gaga, and a few others from all their songs then page views might make sense - but modern pop songs and albums typically (as in this case) have notability and recognizability derived from their artist, not vice versa, removing the artist isn't just unfair to the half dozen other songs: "Crazy in Love", a single by The Ike-Ettes, written Ike Turner 1963, Crazy in Love (Jill Johnson song), Sjoberg, 2003, Crazy in Love (Kim Carnes song), Even Stevens, Randy McCormick 1988, also recorded by Conway Twitty and Kenny Rogers, (plus songs by Eminem on Encore (Eminem album) 2004 by Dorothy Moore 1980 and Louisiana's Le Roux 1978) and four TV/film items, it's also frustrating Beyonce fans who are looking for (Beyonce song) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:SONGDAB. The nom has shown pretty conclusively that the Beyoncé song satisfies the first half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC hands down - it is much more likely than all other uses combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for "Crazy in Love". It also has more historical significance, as evidenced by Google Books results:
  • "Crazy in Love" "Beyoncé": 1,640
  • "Crazy in Love" "Ike Turner" -Beyonce: 33
  • "Crazy in Love" "Jill Johnson" -Beyonce: 28
  • "Crazy in Love" "Kim Carnes" -Beyonce: 53
  • "Crazy in Love" "Eminem" -Beyonce: 195
  • "Crazy in Love" "Dorothy Moore" -Beyonce: 3
  • "Crazy in Love" "Le Roux" -Beyonce: 67
  • "Crazy in Love" "Conway Twitty" -Beyonce: 75
  • "Crazy in Love" "Trudy Richards" -Beyonce: 5
  • "Crazy in Love" "Holly Hunter" -Beyonce: 220
  • "Crazy in Love" "Josh Hartnett" -Beyonce: 27
  • "Crazy in Love" "Kerry Katona" -Beyonce: 65
  • "Crazy in Love" "Will and Grace" -beyonce: 18
  • Total: Beyoncé: 1,640, non-Beyoncé: 789

Only at WP would we send readers to a dab page in the face of convincing evidence that people searching for "Crazy in Love" are overwhelmingly looking for the Beyoncé song. Dohn joe (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't only Wikipedia, Allmusic and other websites also give the artist name. Again WP:Naming conventions (music) recommends the artist name where there are multiple songs. And again for readers searching for "the Beyoncé song" then titling it (Beyoncé song) helps readers. On my mobile "crazy in" autocompletes with Crazy in Love (Beyoncé song) followed by Crazy in Alabama. If I have a good connection and images switched on the thumbnail is what tells me what the article is. But what if I don't? (Beyoncé song) helps those looking for the song and those not, removing it helps no one. Likewise if I can't remember it This is how songs by artists differ from Paris vs Paris, Texas type primary topic comparisons. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Many people will not use the autocomplete, though - some will simply type "Crazy in Love" straight into the search bar if that's what they're looking for. And when the stats show that readers looking for "Crazy in Love" are overwhelmingly looking for the Beyoncé song, that is what we should point them towards, with a hatnote at the top for the minority of readers looking for something else. "Crazy in Love (Beyoncé song)" would, of course, remain as a redirect.

WP:Naming conventions (music)'s disambiguation recommendations are moot when there is clearly a primary topic, as there is here. You would have a point if the suggestion was to move the article to "Crazy in Love (song)". –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Siuenti (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The primary topic is clear. -- Calidum 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this numbers-based popularity contest for such an ambiguous title. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Proving a primary topic is often numbers-based. And it's not a popularity contest, it's about assisting readers by pointing them to what they are clearly looking for. In this case, numbers matter. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand the argument; but in my opinion the reader is usually better served by a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you expand on the reasoning underlying your opinion? How are readers better served by being sent to a dab page in a situation (as here) where we can be sure that we know which article the large majority of them want - and we have the ability to take them there directly? Dohn joe (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If we could be sure what the reader wanted, we wouldn't have any of these issues, would we? Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice dodge, Dicklyon (talk · contribs), shifting plural references like "readers betters served" and "the large majority" to the singular, "the reader". Of course we can't be sure what any one particular reader is seeking. But if that were the requirement then every ambiguous title, even Paris and Ronald Reagan, would be dab pages, because we couldn't be sure what "the reader" wanted, could we? So the requirement is not that, but being sure that most readers searching with the term in question want a certain article. And in this case we are sure, per every criteria that is relevant, we know that article is this one. --В²C ☎ 08:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support as the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the title loses nothing by having the name of its superstar performer included. Sure its primary topic (by a not considerable margin) but this, to my mind, is a pointless move. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• 5x the other topics combined is not a considerable margin? –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Several reasons.

1. The “Kim Carnes” song of the same name has been recorded by Joe Cocker, Conway Twitty, Kim Carnes, Kenny Rogers and Julio Iglesias and has charted on three different occasions with three different artists. If WP had been around in 1988 or 1990 there would have a proposal to make this song the “primary topic”
2. At ASCAP, there are 60 plus songs with the same name, of which over half have a listed performer. This proves beyond reasonable doubt that the title is generic and in all likelihood another song will come along which, according to the number crunchers and blind fandom, should become “primary topic”
3. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, inter alia, “A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. My two points above clearly establishes that one song cannot be reasonably expected to have long-term significance.
4. WP:STABILITY, This is such a generic song title, there cannot be stability if we wish to move the latest song to prime position, merely because it is the latest.
5. Stability. Again. This article has been at the present location since March 2009. That’s stable. Doesn’t need to be moved.
6. I also point out that unlike the Kim Carnes song, this song is only known for the performance by Ms. Knowles. Why should we even be having this discussion? Is WP embarrassed by the delectable Ms. Knowles?
7. As per reasoned argument below by the nominator that even similarly-named songs may also need disambiguation _{(added --Richhoncho (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC))}

--Richhoncho (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you'd care to strike the above assertions that are clearly false as shown below (i.e. 1) the arguments based on this song only charting/being known for performance by just one artist and 2) the fact that this is not the latest use of "Crazy in Love")? Dohn joe (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No, not a chance of striking the comment. It is correct --Richhoncho (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is incorrect to say or imply that this song has not charted with multiple artists. And it is incorrect to say that it is the latest usage of "Crazy in Love" on the dab page. You wouldn't have to strike the entire comment, but you should at least acknowledge that the factual basis for a couple of your arguments is not true. Dohn joe (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the nominator moved song articles with the words, ""too much confusion with other similarly-titled songs." If "similarly-named" songs cause confusion then songs with the same name must also cause confusion. I typed this slowly so you can read it and do not put words in my mouth! Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Let me make this simpler. Two yes/no questions. 1) Has this song charted with more than one artist? 2) Is this the most recent "Crazy in Love" on the dab page? Dohn joe (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I am uncertain for the reason for your question, but will not get in a fever and you will not make me blue, because the question has no relevance. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason should be clear, considering I've said it explicitly several times. You based your opposition on several factual bases, a couple of which have been shown to be untrue. If you don't want to acknowledge that, that's fine. I assume that other editors and the ultimate closer of this discussion can see it for themselves and adjust the weight to be given your arguments accordingly. Dohn joe (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No it is not clear because you patently wish to misunderstand, or pretend to misunderstand, everybody else is fine. I say "A" and your response is "B" is not like that. It's slimy and not worth anybody's time to pay attention to you. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out inaccuracies in factual statements is not slimy. Calling someone "slimy" is, however, a personal attack that reflects more poorly on you than me. Dohn joe (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you have clearly ignored me when I responded to you telling you that there was a clear primary topic here, but not at the "Beat Goes On" articles. How about you drop the waxy statements and personal remarks and focus on this article? Your derailing of this discussion is not appreciated. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your nomination starts with the words, "The Beyoncé song is the primary topic." What is patently obvious is you don't care for primary topic when it suits you. If you hadn't commented I wouldn't have need to reply. Think about it! --Richhoncho (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not about when it suits me, it's about when there is a primary topic and when there isn't. I really wasn't looking to go through all this trouble since the "Beat Goes On" articles are not of immediate concern to me, but I will gladly check the pageview stats for you if you wish. 160 views for Sonny & Cher, 565 for The Whispers, 775 views for Madonna, 1094 for Beady Eye - and those are just for the songs. Do you see a primary topic from those stats? I don't. Now I think the trolling over articles that are irrelevant to this discussion about the "Crazy in Love" articles can cease. Also, for what it's worth, if the "I Will Always Love You" example is irrelevant per OSE, then how are your "Beat Goes On" examples relevant? It seems I'm not the one who picks and chooses parts of policies/guidelines when it suits them, am I? –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, according to this edit of yours, you didn't check the stats before moving the Beat songs. But that isn't the issue, I repeat, you think songs which have similar titles (but not precisely the same) need disambiguation - this is proven by your actions, not mine. Yet this song, where there are other songs with precisely the same title, you think does NOT need disambiguation. Circles and squares and bugger all to do with viewing stats. This is the point where you should not respond to me! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your failure to grasp Chasewc91's argument after several attempts to explain it to you would be an excellent reason to stop responding to you! Dohn joe (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your attempt to point out a contradiction in my edits is nonsensical and ridiculous. I have pointed out to you that the difference between "Crazy in Love" and "Beat Goes On" - regardless of precision - is the latter's lack of a primary topic. Plain. And. Simple. Perhaps this is the point where you should stop responding to me. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• A couple of corrections:

1. The Beyoncé version has been covered and charted with at least one other artist: Antony and The Johnsons in 2009.
2. Yes, there are 60+ songs, fewer than a half-dozen of which are worth mentioning on the dab page, and none of which approach the volume and depth of treatment in books as this one.
3. See above. The treatment in books for this particular song is precisely what gives it greater enduring notability.
4. This is not the latest item on the dab page. The Kerry Katona TV show, the Eminem song, the Hartnett film, and the Jill Johnson song were all contemporaneous with, or have come after, the Beyoncé song. If another "Crazy in Love" comes along that eclipses this one by a factor of 3-5, then yes, let's move it then.
5. Re: stability. 4+ years since the previous move is four more years showing the enduring significance of this song versus the other uses. This is precisely the kind of "good reason" for moving that WP:STABILITY envisions.
6. Again, other artists have covered this song and charted. We are having this discussion because some of us believe that when someone searches for "Crazy in Love", we should send them to the article they're looking for. Dohn joe (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Richhoncho: there are at least 142 songs called "I Will Always Love You", also a fairly "generic" song title. Would you argue that the Dolly Parton/Whitney Houston song is not the primary topic? –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Chase. I, as endorsed by WP:SONGDAB, believe that primary topic is destructive and irrelevant to song titles. I am not going to even look at I Will Always Love You as other stuff exists but I would oppose removing (Dolly Parton) from the URL at WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• SONGDAB clearly says only to use disambiguation "when necessary". Plenty of evidence has been provided by myself and Dohn joe that suggests it's not necessary here. PTOPIC also says, "Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead." So while this is not the only "Crazy in Love" term, the fact that people read the Beyoncé song article 5x more than the other terms combined says a lot, and keeping this article disambiguated is a disservice to readers. The odds are very likely that anyone looking for "Crazy in Love" is looking for Beyoncé's song, and putting them through a dab page to get there is just a plain inconvenience. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please reread. Songdab says to disambiguate when there is two or more songs with the same title. "When necessary" does not appear where you claim it does. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Disambiguation is only needed for terms that are not primary topics. Some songs that share their titles with other songs are the primary topic for that title, ie the previously-mentioned Dolly Parton example. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Show me the reference to primary topic in WP:SONGDAB. There is none. Please reread again. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't need to re-read anything. I made my point rather clear that SONGDAB applies only to cases where song articles need to be disambiguated. If a term is the primary topic, it does not need to be disambiguated. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know what you are reading. Songdab reads,Unless multiple albums (or songs) of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, because there are many other albums named Down to Earth, but H.M.S. Donovan (Donovan album) is unnecessary. There are two or more songs called "Crazy in Love" so therefore needs disambiguating in full. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• This has been pointed out many times before, but again, WP:SONGDAB begins, "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using...." WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tells us when disambiguating is necessary in the first instance. There does not need to be a specific reference to primarytopic at songdab, because songdab is a specific application of WP:DISAMBIGUATION (which includes primarytopic, and is clearly referenced in songdab). The idiosyncratic view that primarytopic does not apply to songdab has been refuted every time you bring it up. Dohn joe (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Again, not true. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to show you several times where your view that primarytopic somehow does not apply to songdab has been floated and rejected by multiple editors. There's nothing wrong with holding, and arguing for, a fringe opinion, but it helps to be aware that it is, in fact, a fringe opinion, not widely held by the WP community. Dohn joe (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• There's 4 other editors on this RM alone that must be fringe, too. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  No, just you and In ictu. No one else here has, to my knowledge, expressed the view that primarytopic does not apply to songdab. Again, this has been pointed out to you before, in multiple venues, by multiple editors. (See here and here for starters. Dohn joe (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment – It should also be noted that the Beyoncé song article is the only article on the dab page (with the exception of Mozart, which is not dabbed and is not commonly known as Crazy in Love) that has received more views in the past 90 days than the dab page itself. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Richhoncho. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  Which bits of Richhoncho's argument do you adopt? Presumably not the parts based on the factual errors I noted above? Or the incorrect assertion that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to songs? Dohn joe (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• My failure to respond to your foolish, irrelevant and pointless points above should not be construed as if I think they have any merit whatsoever. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  The question was directed at Binksternet. Dohn joe (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't appreciate the hostile tone; I'm not in court wearing leg irons. Regarding this move request, I don't think it is appropriate because of the other hit songs of the same title. I place far less importance than some on page statistics; otherwise this would be the encyclopedia of Pokemon. I place more value on historic popularity, including pre-Wikipedia and pre-internet. So the previous songs of the same title are just as valid to me as the more recent song. None of them are the primary topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I didn't intend a hostile tone. The question to you was one of curiosity and trying to figure out your reasoning. The response to Richhoncho was more one of frustration that he jumped in and usurped your opportunity to answer. I appreciate your answer. Dohn joe (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• In fact, I oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, because we cannot know that the recent song will have "long-term significance". So the move suggestion fails the guideline. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is no specific criterion for a PRIMARYTOPIC, so this suggestion doesn't fail anything, actually. But I believe Dohn joe has demonstrated potential long-term significance rather well with Google Books results. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Chase's stats, and User:Dohn joe's sound refutation of User:Richhoncho's argument. Anyone who argues that PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to songdab is very difficult to take seriously. --В²C ☎ 23:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• You should read above again, I opposed citing Primary Topic and stability, but did not mention Songdab until refuting another editor's use of the term! --Richhoncho (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  Richhoncho, look again. You cited songdab first, in response to Chase's question re: "I Will Always Love You." I mentioned songdab in my !vote, but you did not mention it until you brought it up in your thread. And regardless, you do believe that primarytopic does not apply to songdab, correct? Dohn joe (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, I did respond with reference to a query, but the bottom line still stands, my opposition does not mention songdab, because there is no need. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Way too many "Crazy in Love"s, both songs and not songs. Wikipedia should not be reorganised according to page views, these statistics are heavily biased to readers with idle time and ease of access, relying on them biases against scholarship and facilitating widest accessibility. The current set up has no downsides. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The statistics are heavily weighted toward objective metrics, favoring people who, you know, use Wikipedia, and following policy. Your criteria heavily favors subjective opinion and ignoring policy and convention. --В²C ☎ 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No. I have given reasons that are not JDLI. And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not say blindly follow page view stats. The pageview stats don't reflect quantitative likelihood to be searched for because they don't detect multiple hits from the same device (a propensity of modern hand held devices to not cache) and they don't detect hits on mirrors. So there is doubt, and there is good reason to doubt as the title is an well known idiom, and there are so many unrelated notable alternatives not favoured by a narrow current pop culture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
      • You seem to be saying that you believe that since "the title is a well known idiom" many more people are searching for the idiom than statistics indicate because the methods driving the stats don't filter out repeated queries by the same person, which is far more likely for popular song names than for idioms. That argument is pure conjecture. We don't even have an article about the idiom. The popularity of this decade-old song is not a temporary blip in history. If it's usage fades in the coming decades, we can always adjust. But for now, and the foreseeable future, when people search for "crazy in love", the vast majority are looking for this song. Whether we like it or not is irrelevant. --В²C ☎ 17:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
        • No, I am saying that this title is easily misrecognizable. As for people who search, if you were interested in them you would agree that more precise titles are preferable because then the main line returned in search results would include the disambiguation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
    • User:Dohn joe's Beyoncé: 1,640 versus non-Beyoncé 789 was very welcome work on his part, thank you, and yes it presents a prima facie case for the proposal, but I don't think it is quite enough given the number and diversity of other uses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Question for Chase. I am confused why you should wish to remove the artist's name in this instance when you have, in other instances, been adding the artist's name with the edit summary of "too much confusion with other similarly-titled songs." I confirm for other readers that Chase does actually mean "similarly-named" and not precisely the same song title. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have not checked pageview stats and don't care to do that right now, but it did not appear that Beat Goes On had a primary topic, if that's what you're referring to. I have made myself very clear that I believe Beyoncé's "Crazy in Love" is the primary topic for that phrase. –Chase (talk / contribs) 09:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Chase, let's look more carefully. 4 songs are named, 2 have the same title (one of which some might argue is primary topic). The three you have moved by adding the artist's name are The Beat Goes On, And the Beat Goes On, Beat Goes On.The fourth was already at The Beat Goes On (Beady Eye song). As the name is slightly different for the 2nd and 3rd title there was no practical reason to add the disambiguation. What I still don't understand why you have two diametrically opposed actions in relation to song titles - if you can add the artist's name when unnecessary, why nominate to remove here? FWIW I have no objections to these moves for the very same reason I am opposed to this move.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't really need you to spell it out for me like I'm an idiot. Quite simply, all those titles were very similar to the point that I felt they needed disambiguation, and I didn't see a primary topic. Here, I do see a primary topic. I won't explain this any further. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC--apparently neither of its criteria are important to the opposers. Red Slash 23:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Beyonce is just the latest artist to release a song by this title. Twenty years from now, she will be no more recognizable or important than any of the other artists that have released songs by this title.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Jill Johnson's song that came out at the same time and Eminem's song that came out a year later haven't received this level of interest. I could see your argument if the song was 2-3 years old, but it was released nearly 12 years ago and still receives astounding pageview stats that eclipse any other topic with the same name. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't say that there weren't less important artists than Beyonce, just that there's nothing about this song that will make a long-lasting or enduring contribution that will permanently overshadow other songs by the same title.—Kww(talk) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  According to the article, "Crazy in Love" ranked 118th on Rolling Stone'​s 2010 list of the 500 greatest songs of all time. VH1 placed the song at number one on its 100 Greatest Songs of the 2000s list. It won multiple Grammys, and was the number one song in the U.S. for eight weeks, along with being a top ten song in several other countries. It's on the list of the best-selling singles of all time worldwide. When you add that to the coverage the song has gotten in various books and media, doesn't that mean that at least for now, this song has more long-lasting significance, which is likely to persist for some time? Another "Crazy in Love" may never match this one in significance. Either way, it's speculation on our part. Shouldn't we look at how things have actually been over the past decade? Dohn joe (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• See WP:RECENTISM. Beyonce will eventually die or retire, which will put an end to the promotional juggernaut bearing her name.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Absolutely. WP:RECENTISM includes the WP:10 year test. We are now past ten years since the song was released and at its peak popularity, and it remains the most cited "Crazy in Love" in reliable sources. And the 1,640 Google Books results is not Beyonce press releases. The song has received treatment in multiple scholarly works. (See here, here and here for example). Does that affect your thinking? Dohn joe (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  I'll start the ten year test when she retires or dies.—Kww(talk) 15:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  That's fine for you, but I would hope that the closer of this discussion can see then that your position is not based on WP's policies or guidelines (or even an essay like RECENTISM). Dohn joe (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  I'll disagree with that. Titles are supposed to be based on long-term significance. Ten years is a very young person's definition of "long-term". I have underwear and socks older than that. While it's unlikely that Beyonce herself will be completely forgotten when she's gone, her body of work virtually defines ephemeral.—Kww(talk) 16:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  In your opinion, her work is ephemeral. However, years after its release, this song has been ranked on decade-end and all-time "greatest songs" lists by publications such as Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, Slant Magazine, VH1, NME, etc. 10 Nearly 12 years may not be a particularly long time for some people, but an article for an "ephemeral" song would still not receive the attention and traffic as "Crazy in Love" does this many years after its release. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Quite clearly the primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. By all evidence, this is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of both page views and long-term significance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support, a blatant primary topic, as stated above. ThirdWard (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - All the important stats noted in this discussion indicate a very obvious case of a primary topic here. Let's not let silly personal opinions on pop culture interfere with the outcome that is obviously most helpful for readers.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support—very clearly the primary topic with respect to usage and long-term significance. —JennKR | ☎ 22:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the comments above and not being the only song with that name. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• A topic doesn't have to be the only topic with that name to not require disambiguation. That's the point of WP:PTOPIC. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You're forgetting that loading a quick dab page is more convenient to mobile users than loading a giant Beyonce article, then having to load the dab page again (anyway) and then getting the page they want, no one has addressed this - and no one has explained why (Beyoncé song) is inconvenient to people looking for (Beyoncé song)? Why should we remove the most useful bit of information in the title? What possible benefit to anyone? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. It's a really good thing that we have WP:POINT, because I would absolutely 100% go to Talk:Paris and request a move to Paris (France) as per the opposers. After all, we can't know for sure what the reader wants when they type in "Paris". And it's such an ephemeral topic--come on, in another fifteen billion years, who's going to remember the city in France? It would make things easier for fans of France to be sure they were finding the right Paris, too--Paris (France) is unambiguous, while if they look and just see an unadorned Paris in the drop-down bar, how are they supposed to know which Paris it's talking about? So confusing! Plus, come on, Paris (mythology) was there first and has longer-lasting educational value! Yeah, the city perhaps has the most long-term educational value, and definitely gets the most pageviews, and, okay, those are the main two criteria for what makes a primary topic, but... Come on. This is easy. Red Slash 04:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support - If the article is the PRIMARYTOPIC, it will remain the PRIMARYTOPIC. No number of similarly titled songs will change that. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a very reputed guideline, since it is clear that this article is the Primary topic, i'm surprised any more discussion is being continued. MaRAno ^FAN 10:10, 31 January 2015 (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.

Why is this classed as her debut?

This song was not her debut single! Work it Out was her first solo single, it should not be discredited as such, just cos it failed to chart on the Billboard 100... If you check the box at the right of the page under single chronology, you will see that my 'claim' is supported there too! Anyone explain the inaccuracy?! 82.14.229.118 (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed that bit; it was indeed misleading. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Crazy in Love. 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.blender.com/guide/new/52345/dangerously-in-love.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/655SozOGZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtv.com%2Fbands%2Fb%2Fbeyonce%2Fnews_feature_062703%2Findex2.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/bands/b/beyonce/news_feature_062703/index2.jhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708165800/http://www.nme.com:80/blogs/nme-blogs/5-reasons-why-beyonc%C3%A9s-crazy-in-love-is-still-the-best-pop-song-of-the-century to http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/5-reasons-why-beyonc%C3%A9s-crazy-in-love-is-still-the-best-pop-song-of-the-century
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://irish-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Beyonc%E9
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64wvKQAc8?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aria.com.au%2Fpages%2Faria-charts-accreditations-singles-2003.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-2003.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ln8aw3NY?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popmatters.com%2Fpm%2Freview%2F116793-snow-patrol-up-to-now to http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/116793-snow-patrol-up-to-now
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207024658/http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259838-Radio.html?list=true to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259838-Radio.html?list=true
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pifpaf.com.pl/airplay/lista_38_2003.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100914141325/http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2003 to http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080417014822/http://www.ultratop.be/fr/annual.asp?year=2003 to http://www.ultratop.be/fr/annual.asp?year=2003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915002012/http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year=2003 to http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year=2003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402090522/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20030001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20030001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040204154136/http://www.hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=2003 to http://hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=2003

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) 04:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yahoo! source

This source is unreal. Is from a blog and from a Yahoo's user. So, the claim of 5 million copies or be "one of the best-selling singles" is unreal, at least for this song (and many others). I tried to find a better source, but is impossible. And after 2009, most of the references are probably primary sources. So, I will delete that, but before I want to notify on this talk page or if somebody can help find other (not primary source, please). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 23:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Crazy in Love. 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/20110709013138/http://www.dennishensley.com/Beyonce.htm to http://www.dennishensley.com/Beyonce.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715143920/http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=5%2F18%2F2003&Format=9 to http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=5%2F18%2F2003&Format=9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316091646/http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=5%2F18%2F2003&Format=1 to http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=5%2F18%2F2003&Format=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=5%2F18%2F2003&Format=5
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://itunes.apple.com/uk/album/crazy-in-love-feat-jay-z-single/id208624171
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111142123/https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/crazy-in-love-krazy-in-love-ep/id250776822 to https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/crazy-in-love-krazy-in-love-ep/id250776822
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtv.com/bands/b/beyonce/news_feature_062703/index2.jhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604012050/http://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/awards/popawards/2004/ to http://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/awards/popawards/2004/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The%20Billboard%20Hot%20100&g=Year-end%20Singles&year=2003
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations-singles-2003.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610111758/http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12061807 to http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12061807
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/5-reasons-why-beyonc%C3%A9s-crazy-in-love-is-still-the-best-pop-song-of-the-century
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/116793-snow-patrol-up-to-now
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110304012918/http://shop.abc.net.au/browse/product.asp?productid=391618 to http://shop.abc.net.au/browse/product.asp?productid=391618
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://memoriaglobo.globo.com/programas/entretenimento/seriados/malhacao/malhacao-2003-2004-/trilha-sonora.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110215165944/http://www.fox.com/glee/recaps/season-1/episode-11/ to http://www.fox.com/glee/recaps/season-1/episode-11/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406145222/http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp?chartYear=2003&chartKind=S to http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp?chartYear=2003&chartKind=S

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: 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) 10:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crazy in Love. 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://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=5%2F18%2F2003&Format=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527104200/http://music.ign.com/articles/436/436601p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/436/436601p1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The%20Billboard%20Hot%20100&g=Year-end%20Singles&year=2003

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: 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) 07:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crazy in Love. 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/20120529031543/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2012/05/beyonce_ovation_revel_may_26_review.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2012/05/beyonce_ovation_revel_may_26_review.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/rolling.htm/franchises/list/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68Ds4b49t?url=http://www.jeepster.co.uk/site/jeeep.php?pg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jeepster.co.uk%2Fsite%2Fnewsarchive.php%3Fid%3D79 to http://www.jeepster.co.uk/site/jeeep.php?pg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jeepster.co.uk%2Fsite%2Fnewsarchive.php%3Fid%3D79&currentsection=snowpatrol

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: 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) 20:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)