Talk:Feedback (Janet Jackson song)/Archive 1

Unencyclopedic fans-pleasing info

I'm sorry if it sounds negative, for it's not my intention, BUT this song has been performing too poorly to sustain that session saying how journalists "predicted" it would be a hit. That is hardly encyclopedic information, even if it pleases highly fantasizing fans.

---

^ ^ you need to take you sleazy ass somewhere else the single has not been doing poorly its been doing great it peaked in the top 20 and this is coming from a person who hates janet. so take the dick out your mouth and come out from under rock and start realizing society —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejm.23 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Chart Performance Errors (resolved)

Why does it say the song peaked at #53 on the U.S itunes chart when it's still at #53 and hasn't peaked yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.204.68 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's not on the article anymore. The peak information is and will obviously always refer to the single's CURRENT peak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.70.55 (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - The article is too short, it should be merged until it grows into an article worthy page. — Stevenup7002 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - this article is too short to justify standing on its own. — Yavoh 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Don't merge - The song has just been released to the internet an hour ago, of course this article is short. Give it some time. Thenabo (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - The song has achieved nothing yet and until it DOES warrant enough information to have its own article it should be merged. TheGoonSquad (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Merge - I agree with Thenabo. The article will grow. Jjmcspooh (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Merge - Notable song by a notable artist. --Thankyoubaby (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Merge - The new single is already being played at a handful of big radio stations including Z100. News relating to the single will be popping up heavily in the next few weeks. The video is already being prepared, which was confirmed by one of the dancers. No need to merge. Chad427 (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Merge - This is the first single off her new album so I'm sure they'll be plenty of information released, including a video, that will bulk up the article. There are reviews of the song everywhere online.
• Don't Merge - This is the first single. What is the question? It will continue to grow on it's own page. The album comes out in Feb. The single is going to have a video in a matter of weeks. Why on Earth would you delete it. All albums' singles get pages. 68.82.82.248 (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Don't merge, it's a new single from a famous artist, and all singles have their own articles. Plus, it's Janet's best song since All for You :) – Alensha ^talk 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Paragraph

Saying that fans on a Janet Jackson fan website are "frenzied" over the song is hardly surprising or encyclopedic. Also saying that response online has been positive needs a citation that does not simply lead to an illegal download link for the song. TheGoonSquad (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, and the FMQB link reads more like a press release than a review and the Blender link is 1) from a blog, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and 2) links to Britney Spears' "Piece of Me" video, not a review of "Feedback." Also: the About.com link looks like a blog link as well. THE evil fluffyface (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dailymotion link

The brief discussion of the Feedback video in the opening paragraphs has already been the subject of some edit warring, it seems. I've tried to fix some of the expression in the reintroduced, but a bigger fundamental question remains: is it appropriate to link to an uploaded copy of the video on Dailymotion as a source?

Describing the contents of the video would seem to constitute original research, and the link itself is unlikely to be stable. I've left the sentence in there for now, but it seems to me it would be better replaced with a review of the video's contents from a reliable, verifiable source. Thoughts, anyone? Gusworld (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really pleased with how it is now, but then I don't know what to do with it, either. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

high sales

should i write anything about the fact that the single has managed to cause more sensation in tis initial month of release than her two previous lead singles "Just a little while", "Call Me" from her two previous albums "Damita Jo", and "20 Y.O." respectively. I mean this is how gimme more (which peaked at #3) and nelly furtado's maneater and promiscious started in the charts(BIG HITS the second one became the #1 shash of the year just behing justins sexyback)! will it have a similar chart-run or will it stop jumping on the chats. Anyway i believe that this single will be the massive comeback of the year and it will possibly hit #1... should i write anything??! ......

no,definitely not,the song is still climbing on the charts,and its still unknown wether its going to be a hit or not..and if u write something it might confuse readers,and they will think that the song hit number 1 which it didnt yet,so keep everything the same for now....so,i guess well just have to wait and see

Music video description

what did u think about the description i wrote for the music video?i think its good,and it should definitely stay ;).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brexx (talk • contribs) 16:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Should it be said that the white balls at the end of the video look like sperm rising? Watch the video and you'll see.Charmed36 (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's original research and trivial. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Where the hell have I been? I'm flagging the paragraph in question. And personally I agree the end of the video looks like sperm rising, but, you know, original research... ;) THE evil fluffyface (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Watch closely. Jackson throws a white ball (egg) in the air and the sperm rises to fertilize it. Charmed36 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Per above, it is still original research. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:17, 20

January 2008 (UTC)

The section pertaining to the video DEFINITELY needs to be re-written. Nowhere has Jackson or her team ever made direct claims that it was filmed with milk or a metaphor for sperm or fertility. It contradicts wikipedia's NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.7.78 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraph ["Feedback" features a completely different theme from the song itself.The scenes in the second portion of the music video were filmed using a green screen, and real footage of milk was used as the backdrop for this portion of the video.] has been deleted because no one has attached any reference to prove its content.

Furthermore, I didn't find any reference for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate fix-it (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Music

"As of January 19, 2008, the music video for "Feedback" is currently number 2 on Yahoo Music's top 100 music videos." (reworded from an earlier edit, most likely by a zealous fan)

I don't think this belongs in the article. Should it? I think it's trivial myself. THE evil fluffyface (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I agree with you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Citing References

You can't just cite Janet Jackson's official page to back up the "Feedback" "summary." The source has to be something like an interview in a magazine or a similar type of medium. I'm going with User 82.23.7.78 and deleting the whole summary since I haven't seen a source discuss the concept of the video. THE evil fluffyface (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

music video

how wrote that the video starts with cereal box and that shit...? this isn't true! someone offers to correct??? Seki rs (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

After more than 4 comments about wanting more information for the music video section, Realist has updated it with a substantial amount of information. However, the reference cited is nothing more than a single line of text. Does this not amount to original research? Reqluce (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets discuss your opinion, which is what talk pages are for, however based on that tag you put up it seem you dont want to even discuss it at all really. If the one source covers the whole section then whats the problem? Should i readd the citation after every sentance, i can use the source once or eight times, really its up to you lol. There isnt a limit to how much a source can cover before a new source is needed. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to get personal here or to base other editor's request for discussion just because they have tagged something you have added. If I was not interested in discussing it I would not have opened the discussion up here in the first place, really. It is not a matter of the number of sources or how much it covers, yes a single source can cover an entire section. But simply adding the line "Jackson, Janet. "The making of Discipline" DVD - Deluxe edition." can hardly be called a source by any stretch of the imagination. Anything could be added into the section under that generic umbrella sentence. It will be up to a consensus or a vote now to decide if the newly added information stays.Reqluce (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Im not getting personal, you came to the talk page saying "lets discuss this", then before anyone gets the chance to comment you go right ahead and tag it. Sounds like your impatient to me. How isnt it a source lol, the ACTUAL live dvd, the woman herself speaking in the flesh. Its a great source. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, nothing i added is controversial at all. Nothing that people would go crying about or disputing. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Realist2 could benefit from reading Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. "lol" is hardly a mature justification for what is evidently lacking in accordance with the aforementioned Wiki guidelines to qualify as a primary reference: publishing details (this can be the cat number of the disc) etc. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Reqluce (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So now lol, is banned, crums, its something i always use dont be offended. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Added two further sources, will try to find even more, shouldnt be to bad now. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Time for a clean-up

Now that Feedback is no longer been actively promoted (and hence isn't likely to see major changes in its chart history), it would seem timely to trim this a article bit; there's a lot of cruft left from the version of the article that predated its release which clearly isn't relevant for a song that's only been a middling hit. I'm planning to edit in a couple of days, but thought I'd place a notice here to solicit comments first. Gusworld (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've clean-up a bit. --Efe (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Official Versions

The supposed remix that features vocals by Ciara are NOT official, according to the record produce Jermaine Dupri, Jackson had NOTHING to do with it. See this source : http://blogs.sohh.com/soul/2008/02/jermaine_dupri_8.html The remix is an attempt by Ciara to cash in on Jackson's promotion. Therefore someone please remove it. Also, there is no word that the supposed remix featuring 'Xhibit' is official either, I suggest someone clear these 2 from the list permanently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.63.229 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the list of official remixes with all the run times? Why was it removed?Reqluce (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It was unsourced. Realist2 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A commercial disappointment

The fact that this song, well, kinda flopped should be factored into the article somehow. Wasn't this her focus-grouped "Comeback"? PatrickJ83 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

im not sure about that but it is safe to say that the article makes it sound like its an international smash when it was only a modest hit. People are using really obscure charts like black charts , urban charts to say oh hey she charted really well her in bulgaria but when you look at the proper national bulgaria chart not these stupid sub charts she`s down in the 50`s. I think we should remove all charts that arent the official national chart of a country, then we will see how well or unwell she charted. Realist2 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a fan of Jackson but I agree wtih Realist2 that one has to face the facts that in the bottom line: the official charts do not reflect what could at best be described as a modest hit (or no hit at all if not for digital downloads). It did not even chart in the top 75 UK singles chart, the only international chart that is based ONLY on single + digital SALES, and NOT airplay like all these other obscure charts. I am in favor of Realist2's suggestion that we keep only the OFFICIAL charts of EACH country. Otherwise we could end up with 3-4 different charts from each territory, and a hell of a lot of needless information to tell us what we already know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.63.229 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

lol check my edits im a huge fan of both jacksons and if its coming from me its a reality, we should removal all charts that are not the official chart of a country. We should also remove all the sub american charts like the bubbling under , dance charts etc, since its charted on the main billboard chart the other america charts are irrelevant. Realist2 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey we're getting off my topic here...I'm saying let's discuss that the song was a bit of a flop, not debating the importance of the Bulgarian chart. PatrickJ83 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No the point is that if we remove all the stupid charts first then and only then can we see how well it actually performed worldwide, if we remove these charts it will instantly become apparent that it is a mediocre his and we can take if from there. Realist2 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that modification is needed. As a side note to the above claim that the UK is the only international chart which is sales only, the Australian charts work in the same way. In fact, it's my impression that the US model of adding airplay is the exception, not the norm -- but that doesn't alter the main issue in terms of this article. I'd suggested earlier that a serious edit was needed, and I'll try and do one in the next couple of days if no-one else gets there first. Gusworld (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ive reverted most of the stupid charts and am watching to page to ensure they dont come back. A word of warning though i have noticed that it is still climbing the charts, if we are going to call it a failer i think its best to wait until its stopped climbing. Realist2 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• uuum people wake up the single is NOT a flop!!! it just jumped from #58 to #19, becoming janets first top 20 hit in AGES (in 7 years actually!!!). The song hasn't benn released in the uk yet!!! it has also reached #3 on the canadian charts so far so it is a massive comeback for janet!!! it is also in the top 10 in japan and other countries so don't write anything about a flop or anything else... the song is a comeback hit and nobody can doubt it since it is succesful on charts...

--Mysterious Spy (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed originally it looked like a flop, but it know seems to be a hit. Lets wait until its out of the charts though before we start editing it. Realist2 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

the single will probably enter the top 10 this week... lets wait... i believe that it will hit a position between #4 to #10. It will be a hit and rock with you will enter the charts this week as luv will also do (rock with u was #120 last week and luv was #102 last week). The album will surely achieve Platinum status and ecause i suspect that feedback and rock with u will be top 10 hits, the album will probably be certified a double and (why not?) a triple platinum certification. It will reatin a position (the album) in the top 10 for a couple of weeks...........................................i hope....

MARIAH HAD A COMEBCK SO JANET WILL HAVE ONE TWO!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.106.98 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Remixes - content for when it's not deemed too controversial

Eleven remixes of "Feedback" have been officially released:

1. . Moto Blanco Radio Edit 3:57
2. . Jody den Broeder Radio Edit 3:58
3. . Ralphi Rosario & Craig J Electro Shock Radio Edit 3:44
4. . Ralphi Rosario's Dirty Radio Edit 3:59
5. . Wideboys Radio Edit 3:01
6. . Moto Blanco's Full Vocal Club Mix 8:29
7. . Jody Den Broeder Club Remix 7:18
8. . Ralphi Rosario & Craig J Electro Shock Club Mix 8:09
9. . Ralphi Rosario's Dirty Club 9:39
10. . Wideboys Club Mix 6:18
11. . Moto Blanco Dub 7:48

p.s. I have the CD of these but unsure if that helps prove they exist. Benjiboi 22:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It really needs sourcing im afraid. Realist2 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear who exactly believes this information is untrue but is this sufficient? Benjiboi 22:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes thats great, include it, but have the list in the same order as the sources list. Realist2 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Brazil charts

A couple of IP editors have attempted to change the Brazilian entry. A general consensus had been established earlier that only major national charts should be used in this article, to avoid the chart performance section becoming unwieldy and to ensure an accurate record of the song's overall commercial success. I'm loathe to start an edit war by continually reverting this, but those users should explain why they believe the dance chart number should replace the national chart number. Gusworld (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It has already been reverted back to the original version by someone else, but I'll leave this note here in case further discussion is needed. Gusworld (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, also no more than 18 charts allowed anyway. semi protect article posibbly. Realist2 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Chart performance section

While we've still got to keep an eye out for people trying to distort the actual chart performance table as it stands, it seems to me that the summary text discussing this also needs work. At the moment, we have detailed chart trajectories for the US, Canada and New Zealand, but much of the other chart information is ignored. I know that there's endless debate about how successful 'Feedback' can be said to be, but the current text isn't very well structured and obscures the points that are pretty clear and likely to be remembered long-term (first US top 20 hit in ages etc.) Some of the sentences are badly phrased (e.g. "It also makes her the fourth female artist with the most top 40 hits in history"), but I'd rather get consensus on a slightly broader change than endless nitpicking edits (though that might end up being the only practical option.)

Also, why are there no UK or German chart figures? These represent two of the major world markets, and the album has been released in the UK so the track is chart-eligible. If it failed to chart at all (or if there was a conscious decision not to promote it), that would in itself be potentially noteworthy. It's an odd omission as it stands. Apologies if I've missed something in previous discussions and edits about this.Gusworld (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In the uk it failed to chart, the album only peaked at 63. The brits are more interested in her brother, Realist2 (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gold certification claims

I notice an IP editor added an unsourced claim that Feedback's sales of 516,000 would entitle it to a gold certification, which would be Janet's 24th. Realist2 correctly removed this as the source did not back up the claim of sales. I'd also remind contributors that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and doesn't include predictions of possible future events. If the single has sold this many downloads AND it is actually certified, it will be worth adding at that time, but speculation is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Gusworld (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Im getting tired of protecting this page from unsourced ip adress rubbish, i think it should be semi protected. Realist2 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Charts, peaks and styles

I just realised that the section on chart performance didn't mention a relevant fact -- that Feedback reached its peak the same week Discipline was released. I've added this, with a source (though without indulging in analysis of why the two coincided -- that's up to the reader to judge!). Also did some general cleaning of the text in this area. It seems to me that it's safe to now say that the song has peaked on the relevant U.S. charts; in the unlikely event of the song rising higher, this can of course be modified, but the repeated inclusion of "thus far" basically amounts to a subtle example of unwarranted crystal-ball-gazing, so I removed it for the US charts.

I notice that the article has consistently used periods when abbreviating U.S. and U.K. While the former is an accepted (and apparently dominant) approach in American English (the relevant style for this entry), the Manual of Style makes it clear that this should never be done for UK, so I'll change the relevant discography entries. For consistency, I think it'd be better to use US throughout (which is also an acceptable alternative style), but I'll leave that one open for discussion.

Finally, another stylistic niggle: the chart positions should all be expressed as numbers. Spelling out two-word numbers is an "alternative" according to the MOS, but we don't have a consistent approach, and chart positions as numbers (except where it really messes up a sentence, which I don't think is the case here) are clearer and more widely used elsewhere. Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, im thinking of putting this article up for GA if it improves enough. Realist2 (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC) It's definitely a good part of the way there, though the IP vandals (who you continue to vanquish very effectively!) would be a pain in that context. Once it's ex-chart though I'd imagine that'll lesson. Still needs a couple more references, though by Wikipedia pop single article standards it's doing rather well. Gusworld (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations need formatting but i just formatted 152 sources in 2 days for the thriller album so my head is spinning. And yes im like a BOT on this page, nothing bad lasts long here. Realist2 (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As part of a general cleanup, I'd propose the following large changes (as well as various grammar/copy edits):

• Removing the reference to the About.com songs of 2007 lists (most Wiki music projects argue against the inclusion of arbitrary lists like these in discussions of a record's reception, and we now have chart data which is a much less subjective measure than when this text was added). No objection to the review itself staying, though I'd argue Billboard (as a more notable industry publication) should go first.
• Adding fact tags to a couple of undocumented claims in the performance section, so we can either hunt down references or delete unverifiable content.
• Why are the promo CDs the first entries in the track listing section? Given that these aren't commercially available, I'd argue that they shouldn't precede actual releases such as the UK 12" or Aus singles. Actually, given that all the tracks on both of them are subsequently listed in the remixes section (a rather recent addition), they don't add any extra information, and veer into indiscriminate collection of information territory. The fact that the promos exist could be mentioned with footnotes in the remixes section, but the repeated track listing as it currently stands seems excessive to me.
• Tidying up the references by making it clear what type of content each one links to -- I'm personally a fan of using the cite web/cite news templates for this (especially as the retrieval dates matter for most chart data and this ensures they're added), but that isn't as critical as making it clear what kind of reference is involved in each case. I note the cite templates are already used in the Billboard chart refs, so the article is arguably not consistent anyway and probably should be standardised. (I now see Realist2 has highlighted the same problem -- happy to do it for this article to save further head-spinning on his part!)
• As mentioned above, standardising on numbers (not words) for chart positions and using 'US' rather than 'U.S.'.

Opening these up for discussion before I go ahead, as they're quite big alterations, though I think each is justified in terms of Wikipedia's core approaches and requirements. Gusworld (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah standardising the names of countries and numbers is good, the formatting of citations is essentual, it cant reach GA without it. Realist2 (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Chart data (Resolved)

I removed an addition France to the chart list the other day on the grounds that we're trying to keep the chart list down to the recommended 18, but after reflection (and some discussion with Realist2) it seems silly to exclude that particular chart purely for that reason, given France is a fairly major music market. So I've restored it. Long-term, if we want to keep the list to 18 (which is recommended practice), that means something else has to go. To my mind, the two obvious candidates would be the Pop 100 (we already have four US charts, and the song's performance here wasn't notably different to that on the Hot 100) or possibly the Dutch charts, given the non-notable performance and the size of the country's market overall. Thoughts, anyone?

I'm also going to go ahead and make the other stylistic and reference changes suggested above sometime this weekend, since no-one seems to have raised any objections. Gusworld (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You already know my humble personal opinion, im sure it can be resolved. Realist2 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed Greek position. Its not a big market. The entries in the table seems fine.

Thanx efe, i noticed you remove 800 bytes of info on my watchlist so i went into red alert but it was a good call. --Realist2 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. --Efe (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Position of chart on article

I believe that the tables with the charts should be in the same section as 'Chart Performance', since it all deals with the same subject. This should be after 'song information' followed by 'music video' as per all other singles on Wiki. Anyone else second this?Reqluce (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow 1 step at a time, we still trying to agree on what should actually be in the table, lol. Realist2 (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm was not suggesting anything to do with the content, but rather the position of the table on the page. As per Wiki:Album guidelines, chart performance and the actual charts do fall under the same section. The contents of which can be debated as a different issue.Reqluce (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No. In lieu of prose, we put lists and tables right after the last paragraph. --Efe (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, there are competing views on this within Wikipedia: putting chart tables with chart discussion places all the related information together, but many articles leave all tabular and list information (such as discography details and charts or movie credits) after all the text, making it easier to read the main body of the article. Like Efe, I tend to favour this approach myself, given the length of the table, which would otherwise create something of a blockage within the prose part of the article. Gusworld (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hum im staying outta this one. Realist2 (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gusworld. Its not my opinion, but could be; read song-related articles that get FA. If you can observe, all lists are taken below the page to not break the prose. --Efe (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this article is all about gunning for some award instead of being just a good reference source. Well if anyone wants to see a page that has won it, please look at Cool (song). THAT is the correct format (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The entry for Cool (song) has the chart table at the end, exactly the same as here, so I'm not sure what point is being made, since the original suggestion was to move the chart table into the text adjacent to the discussion. There are sections in that article not included here (structure and writing history), but I suspect that in part reflects the lack of references located to date dealing with those topics. But that doesn't relate to the immediate issue we're discussing here.

There's rarely a single absolutely correct format at Wikipedia; it tends to vary depending on circumstances and the individuals involved. But in this case, on the issue being discussed, the two examples match up. And I don't really see what the position of the table has to do with being a "good reference source" -- the key criteria for that are good writing and verifiable information. Cleaning up the reference structure would definitely help with the former (as discussed elsewhere here), but again this has nothing to do with the table position. Gusworld (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Promo CD single

I see the sourced promo CD single information has been deleted by an editor citing 'only major releases'. It not only showed that the mixes are official but were pressed on a CD, so that's another thing gone. So what is a 'major' release then, only U.S. and/or U.K. releases? What about Japan (if someone says it is not worthy of notation I would like to point out the bonus tracks available on the last few albums as well as this one which are Japan sepcific). I say bring it back.Reqluce (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually remove the promos, but I had suggested on this talk page earlier that it might be a good idea. Given that all the mixes are listed as available commercially online under the remix section, that information hasn't disappeared. The general consensus around Wikipedia seems to be that promotional releases shouldn't be included unless they feature otherwise unreleased material, which isn't the case here. Commercial releases are another matter -- if the Japan release has a notably different format, it's worth including (and note the UK release still is there). I think Efe is using the word 'major' to mean 'commercially released for sale' here -- that's certainly consistent with the edit. Gusworld (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are just promotional releases. --Efe (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Brazil dance succession box

I removed this, as it was unsourced (the chart in question isn't even referred to in the main article) and doesn't appear to be part of a well-maintained succession box series. Still hoping to get in and format the references this week. Gusworld (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah doesnt need to be there anyway, im up to my eyeballs at the minute with other projects. Just trying to keep it stable. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference tidying

Just about to kick in on the first stage of reference tidying: making sure references match the claims made of them (quite a few don't) and are still functional (also a big problem). Second stage is formatting consistently. Gusworld (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, ill do some too. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Major changes made on this pass:

• The iTunes link used to source the release date of December 26 no longer works (because it's now an album track). Best alternate source I could get was December 29 (from the Island site), which is what's there for now. No doubt some people will scream "it came out on the 26th", but we need a valid source to verify that.
• The radio stats link was dead, and the site is subscription-only, which is against policy, so I removed that material (less relevant now anyway with chart data).
• Reordered the reviews and did some copy editing (one was quoted a bit too selectively and I've said before it makes sense for Billboard to go first).
• Lots of the chart links no longer act as verifiers, as many online charts are changed every week and aren't archived. No positions were lost as most of these charts are in the achart archive, but it's something to watch.
• There's no sources for the claimed trajectories for the US, Canada or NZ; in my opinion these could just be removed, but I've fact-tagged them for now.
• One of the remixes wasn't supported by sources, so I removed it.

I'll wait a while to see if anyone comes up with cites for contested material and for the changes to settle before going through and formatting the references properly. Gusworld (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the trajectory should only include the debut and peak. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A perminant link to chart positions (all these positions are already in the article)here. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as chart positions go, I think they're all permanent links now. The acharts link could potentially be used as sources for the trajectory information in the earlier section as well. (My two cents on this: better to link to the official chart provider if they have an archive, better to link to something like acharts if they don't; a news source would still be better if available, but that's probably unlikely). Gusworld (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, all the references are formatted. I also tidied up the trajectory information and the international charts, and took out the stuff about the alternate video (as the link doesn't actually prove that claim anyway). There are a few outstanding issues:

• With the text now tighter, the video pic ran awkwardly in the right column relative to the infobox. It looks a little better at left, which is where it is now, but the text it goes with still doesn't run to a sufficient length (and isn't likely to, all things considered), so half of it overlaps awakwardly with the release information, which it doesn't really relate to. Possible solutions would be to (1) delete the picture, or (2) to adopt an earlier suggestion and run the charts table under the chart section, which would allow the picture to be right-aligned again. (I don't personally like altering article structure just to include an image, but it's a possibility).
• We really need citations for the claims about the number of top 20/top 40 hits Janet has had, and (more critically) her ranking amongst female artists.

The article is still a little US-centric as it stands, but given that the US now seems to represent by far Janet's biggest market, it's not a super-pressing concern. Gusworld (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I went over to the janet article and there was nothing on top 40 positions there. A possible way to improve the picture issue is to have a larger, promotion section, with the music video being part of that. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good thought. That might also provide a way with dealing with another issue -- at the moment the lead doesn't provide a good overview of the main article content, but does include specific details about release dates which isn't included elsewhere. A 'promotion and release' section might cover both issues -- I'll have a crack at it. Gusworld (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC) OK, have done that, does help matters with the structure and pic. A quick count of the singles listed in the main discography suggests that Feedback is Jackson's 18th top 20 hit on the Hot 100 -- whoever added these figures originally was perhaps counting top 20 hits on any Billboard chart, but the numbers clearly aren't right, so I'm going to excise them. Gusworld (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Darnation, just realised my printer skipped a page for some reason . . . counting again. Gusworld (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, in terms of singles on which Jackson receives a label credit and which were eligible to chart on the Hot 100, Feedback appears to be her 29th Top 20 Hot 100 Hit. Gusworld (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you have been busy. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead shouldnt be sourced, its ment to be an overview of the article, what is in the lead should be repeated in its relevant sections, it should be sourced in its relevant section. Also i thing numbers should be changed to words. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My reading of the lead policy was that while links weren't necessary in the lead if the same information was sourced in the main body of the article, they were still useful and acceptable if the information wasn't otherwise sourced or was highly contentious. In this case, the information re the song being the lead single from Discipline (and that being the tenth album) isn't mentioned or sourced anywhere else, and I'm not sure it's worth repeating in the body. Open to suggestions though.

Elsewhere in the lead, I don't think we can say the video was critically well received when there's absolutely nothing in the body about that, though the point about reception of the song is relevant, so I might modify that.

Re numbers, it varies a bit: chart positions definitely always work better as numbers, as do most numbers over twenty (and many over ten). Which particular instances do you think are problematic? Gusworld (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I know a GA reviewer will by annoyed at like 4 sources in a lead that is only a few lines long. Its not how leads, particulary ones that short should be. I actually ashumed there was some critical commentry on the video. Maybe we should get some. If you wanna keep them as numbers thats fine. Anyways werent you doing michael jackson lol. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 06:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, possibly the information about the song's role as the lead single etc. and who produced it could go further into the body (which would result in a shorter and easier to read lead). However, it's pretty clear that if an exceptional claim (such as a song's relative performance) is made in the lead, whatever the length, it should be sourced regardless.

Another stylistic note: I notice that every instance of U.S. has been expanded. In many cases, I think this makes the sentences more awkward than if the abbreviation is used, and the Manual of Style makes it clear that U.S. is an acceptable and widely used abbreviation, so I'd be very much inclined to change this back in most instances after the first one (although that's one of the ones where I think it makes the sentence read more akwardly).

MJ not being neglected, but I'm doing it on paper. Gusworld (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On paper, wow im impressed, im going through a phase resently of writting, UK and U.S. out in full. Ive done it for all my recent GA's (and hopefully FA with MJ) and they have never been an issue. It should be one or the other but people mix them up in the same article which is a no no. Additionally i hate the dotes in U.S. I mean, when it comes to the end of a sentance you would have U.S.. That bloody stupid. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 06:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just did a restructure to address the lead stuff, but there was an edit conflict so might have lost some of the changes being made by you. I'll go back and check now.

I doubt an article would get rejected for either approach; the MOS suggests that spelling out is fine, as is spelling out once and then using abbreviations. I can't see it as a GA dealbreaker having the consistently abbreviated version, and some phrases (e.g. "US iTunes Store") sound more natural in abbreviated form. (The biggest problem is having a mixture of U.S. and US, which I think we have dodged so far.)

I agree on the dots; as I've said earlier on this page, I prefer US, but I was deferring to the style in place when the article started (American English allows both variants). I wouldn't have a problem with changing all of them to that, but there are still places where I think spelling it out just doesn't sound as elegant. Gusworld (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, note it must be 2001s. first you cant wiki link single years. Secondly its not 2001's. I have seen bots remove it, i used to add it all the time. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 06:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the apostrophe issue; haven't wikilinked any single years myself so guessing that comment is addressed to another editor. Gusworld (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i see, im having a wash at moment (sure im not allowed to share out personal info like that), ill be back in 30 mins. Dont go away!!!. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 06:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuff that needs addressing

Aside from the stylistic quibbles being worked through, a few problems still need addressing:

• We don't have a source for the claim the video was filmed in New York.
• We don't have a source for the writing or production credits. (These might not be seen as controversial, but the one reference we have talking about production, the PR Newswire release, doesn't mention D'Mile, so I think sourced info would be good.)
  • DONE - d'mile is mentioned in booklet
• It would be good to have some information about the composition and genesis of the song, though whether any exists I don't know.
• It might be good to have critical commentary on the video, though none seems to have shown up during the tortured history of editing the video info section.

The last two aren't essential, but would make a better article; the first two definitely need addressing. Gusworld (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just spoke to the lord of Janet wikipedians and they will try and get some info on where and when it was performed live. Good promo info. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 07:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[1] - janet performs on good morning america. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC) DONE

[2] - janet performs feedback on TRL. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)DONE

Good stuff, have added those in. Gusworld (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Article structure

Can someone please explain why the 'Music Video' section was lumped into the 'promotion' section? All other Wiki:Songs pages list (especially featured articles) information regarding 'Music Video' in its own rightful titled section, and I fail to see why the edit was "necessary" to rename it as "Release and promotion". It should be reverted.Reqluce (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Because there was such little info, cant has sub headings for 3 line sections, which was all that was left when all the unsourced stuff was removed. Thus we added it to the promotion because the video is part of the songs promotion. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 10:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, as noted before, it's difficult to get the picture to align correctly with all the text with the article at its current length (and I don't think anyone wants the picture removed). Open to other suggestions on how the problem might be solved, though. One obvious interim possibility is to add 'video' to the heading for this section. Gusworld (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a re-org of the article. Like all of Jackson's other singles (and featured artcles), it should have 1) Song Information (this can include production and promotion info), 2) Reception 3) Music Video 4) Track listing 5) Remixes 6) Charts 7) References in that order. Reqluce (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should collect as much info as we can find THEN decide the exact arrangement, when we know what we are dealing with.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 11:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(Moved this to the bottom for easier tracking) I'm not sure how much more information is likely to emerge at this stage. The structure Requluce is proposing actually isn't a radical reorganisation of what's there -- it's mosly a matter of different headings and re-breaking out the video section. I'd still argue that the discussion of chart performance belongs in reception and the charts table at the end (in line with most articles, including FAs, on singles), but other than that the main difficulty and difference with the proposed arrangement is how we'd deal with the dodgy picture rendering that results. Thoughts on that would be welcome. Gusworld (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture might have to go then, the way it was before was not good. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 11:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have changed back to Reqluce's suggested structure, which is more consistent (though a lot of JJ's singles could use a little tidying in this respect). As it happens, the picture now works fine again -- the difference being that the change in the structure of the lead made puts it back in a more workable position with the video section. Goes to show that it's always worth revisiting a problem! Gusworld (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If only we could get more info on the video. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 13:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Capital letters - remix section

Every word starts with a capital letter. Is that right?--Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's how the remix names are listed at the source (and it is pretty common for remix names to be all caps). The exception is the two iTunes-only So So Def mixes, which don't list a capital on 'featuring', so I've changed that. Gusworld (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN stuff

Sorry mate, this doesn't currently meet the broad criteria - there is no discussion of how the song was made, or anything like that. Check out I Don't Remember for an FA song article, try and work it based on that. I've taken this off the GAN list for now... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem, something else to add to my list. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is looking much better if you wanted to nominate for GA. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Am late. Since the GAR of Madonna, I was thinking of bringing this to GAR as well or fail it myself. My very reason is that there is no section dedicated at least to the background/writing/recording of the song. Music and lyrics are good sections as well. Dont worry buddy, you'll find them soon. --Efe (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What? This articles isnt GA yet so how can you fail it? Efe are you on pills again? However you have provided me with some advise for improvements. Still quit the pills Efe, Im worried about you man. ;-) --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Arrghhhhh! Oh my. I was in a hurry and I really thought before that "Feedback" got GA, like Discipline. --Efe (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, it gave me a laugh. ;-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)