Talk:Sugar (Maroon 5 song)

Proposed merge with Sugar (music video)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The "Sugar" song article is not very large at all, and the music video article can easily be condensed and merged into the song article. I'm not seeing the need for a separate article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Merge without a doubt. Echoing the nominator here but it can very easily be merged without leaving out anything important. There was no need for the initial split. Gloss 21:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose / Keep it as a separate article. It has enough material to stand at all. Also WP:REVENGE has it steps here, having the fact the history if the nominator and his stalker has given to numerous of articles I created/edited. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't bring personal issues into this. The nominator was advised by another editor to open this discussion after the AfD was closed rather quickly. No revenge playing into this, unless you'd like to assume bad faith. Gloss 00:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? I assume bad faith? You are the one acting like his stalker going around his "comments" on other user pages how they shouldn't have closed/opened etc. discussions and supporting him. For anyone who wants to see that just let them check your "Contributions". — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're from, but in the U.S. calling someone a "stalker" is a very serious accusation, and not a word you should be throwing around so lightly. You've now used it twice. Lucky for you, I have very few feelings and a little punk who has his panties in a bunch because his article might be merged won't bother me anytime soon. But I'd suggest you refrain from using that kind of word around anyone else before you come across somebody who will put in the effort to have you blocked for it. Back to the point, this is a discussion about merging two articles, not about how much you don't like the person who proposed the merge. WP:ANI is that way if you think the nominator is out for "revenge". Gloss 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant a Wikipedia stalker, not a person/child/woman stalker. Wherever you from it's easy to understand the context [duh!]. As per the other part of the comment, I can express my opinion wherever I want, and I still think WP:REVENGE applies here. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 01:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Merge per both above. Honestly Tomica, it sounds like you're incredibly attached to this article and it comes off very biased. Perhaps instead of attacking Gloss, you should chill and sit this one out.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hmmm? The thing is I am not attached to this article, I am attached to this both people behaviors. And If you were around more, you would understand it too.— Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

*Neutral - So here is how this goes, I don't think the video itself is notable at all. The size of the video article is what pushes me towards support. If sum1 expands a non-notable article sufficiently, does it automatically get its own article? If I could expand an article on every song's video, would it become notable? Not exactly. These are the facts to be taken into account. So, I am sort of neutral to this. The video is not immediately notable, but it's length would suggest to keep the article. In this situation, I lean towards whichever side garners the most support. MaRAno ^FAN 12:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Changing to Merge after all the discussion that has gone down below.-- MaRAno ^FAN 11:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep / Oppose - To be honest, there is a lot of valuable information here. Too much for the song article and would make it far too big. I wouldn't mind seeing this stay. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, guys. Promote information, don't reduce it. This article has had more than 10,500 views in the past 30 days, so I think we can safely say that it is notable enough to stay as a lot of people are looking at it.  — ₳aron 10:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Merge – There are very few music videos that can be considered notable and have their standout articles (such as "Gangnam Style" and "We Found Love" – both of which have achieved numerous awards and gained a huge number of views on video-sharing websites). Compared to the aforementioned articles, I personally don't think that the video for "Sugar" can have its stand-alone article. HĐ (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  To be fair though, those two videos have been out for several years, so thy are bound to have more views on VEVO than a few weeks old video.  — ₳aron 11:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Calvin999's comments. The music video is notable enough to warrant its own article, and everything in the article itself is noteworthy. The video is sort of unconventional compared to the norm, and it is what seems to have propelled the song's performance. — Arre 22:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Merge - this article is ridiculously long, particularly the introduction! I thought at first this was the entire article! LOL. Unless a video is somehow historical or notable in some way, I don't see how it's justified for it to be a separate article. Especially where you could watch the video five times in the time it takes to read the article. Wikimandia (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Wikimandia: Longevity is actually why this article exists. A video doesn't need to be historic to have its own article. It has been a month since this video has been released, it had so many social media attractions (memes, controversies etc etc), 100+ million views on YouTube and will of course have a multiple video awards. And for your last sentence... watching the video =/= reading about how it was made. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's not actually ridiculously long, but it's too long for the song article.  — ₳aron 10:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• IMO it is ridiculously long. It's obsessively long. I hear your reasons Tomica but I don't see how it deserves its own article. Lots of videos are cool and popular and have guest stars and themes and get lots of views, but it doesn't mean they can't be described in a nice section of the song article. Check out Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.) - article about song and video living merrily together. This one too Dark Horse (Katy Perry song) and it had controversy as well. Wikimandia (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's ridiculously long is nowhere a reason for an article to get merged. If we merge this amount of words (about how the conception started, it was planned, shot, what the video is about, how the critics accepted it, controversy etc etc) will still be in the song article [according to you still long]. And for the upper mentioned examples, I do not need to go over videos which were notable and create separate articles for them if I do not want to (I am not a fan of Perry). If there is an interested editor he can try creating one and I will not oppose for sure. Tbh, I never planned to create a video article for this one either, but I found this great interview by the director and said why not, created an article that can perfectly stay on Wikipedia.— Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• The length isn't my reason for it not deserving its own article. I was simply commentating on my initial shock at seeing the article. This is not Michael Jackson's Thriller. The point in referencing the other examples (and I thought of Katy Perry bc Dark Horse was the most watched video of 2014, and I think won best video overall at VMA) is that there is no need for them to have their own articles. If someone created them, people would promptly propose they be merged back into the song article. Wikimandia (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Wikimandia: It's not notable like Thriller by MJ... Does that mean only Thriller can get a video article? Because it was parodied/influenced a lot of other music videos? Shit no. That doesn't mean the "Sugar" video will not be notable one day. As I said ofc it will received a lot VMA/EMA/Grammy nominations and then what? We can create an article? Btw, Best Video was "Wrecking Ball" by Miley Cyrus, not "Dark Horse". — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• If we merge this amount of words (about how the conception started, it was planned, shot, what the video is about, how the critics accepted it, controversy etc etc) will still be in the song article [according to you still long]. And that's where condensing comes into play. No one is suggesting this forked article be merged back in its entirety. In fact, the music video section of the song article, as of this writing, looks perfectly fine as is, with no need for an additional article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If you think that's enough, I don't think. At the end of a day this is a merge discussion (getting the content from the video article to the song article) not deleting. We are not POV-ing the opinion of a single user on Wikipedia, when here are other users who think this article should exist on itself. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Four other editors besides myself disagree with a separate article existing, so I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest I'm the only one who thinks that. POV refers to article content, not discussions regarding content; obviously POV is at hand on both sides and that's the point. Don't misinterpret policies. Extra details can be added from the current video article, but I don't think there's much else that needs to be merged. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And four others besides myself agree with a separate article existing.  — ₳aron 18:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And yet that's your opinion. Four other editors agree with me. If this article gets merged most of the details apart of the lead [ofc] and the aftermath can go, the rest will be replaced in the Music video section. At least you should respect other users work which was done by using a reliable sources that can perfectly stay in the article. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per Tomica. Erick (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The music video itself meets WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMUSIC that sets limitations on whether or not a music video can have its own separate article, and what are the qualifications that warrant it. — Status (talk · contribs) 00:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• There are site-wide guidelines, however, on creating multiple articles about the same subject. WP:SPINOFF was cited in the AfD, but it says that "a section of the article is made into its own article" only when "an article gets long". The song article is not long, nor would it be with a condensed version of the music video article merged into it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Merge: Agree with the others that there is no need for the video page to exist separately. --Fastester (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: This song became popular because of its music video. It has garnered numerous positive reviews, as well as many negative ones, slamming the music video as an "act" due to the lack of video recording on mobile phones present in the video. I think personally that this should deserve a standalone article, and that merging it would make the song article awfully long. However, as per HĐ, I frankly don't know why "We Found Love" has a standalone video article. "Sugar" is a music video that attracted many viewers due to its unprecedented yet creative concept which makes viewers tied with a smile on their faces. As for Tomica, this case seems to be a case of harassment and wikihounding. You can send a warning message if you want. I know that there are certain hypocrites in this editing community of recent music. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 14:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please keep this discussion relevant to the articles in question; this was not the appropriate forum for the personal comments made by Tomica. Discussion of that should take place elsewhere. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• At least my comment had reasons on why I chose the "keep" option, it is not completely out of point or some shit like that. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 04:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Merge: Music video does not need a standalone article. It has less than 200 million views, no nominations for awards, and generated around as much media buzz as Nicki Minaj's Anaconda, which does not has a separate article for its music video. heyzec! 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A video does not need to have award nominations or more than 200 million views to have its own page. Having enough details for its shooting and development is enough, and here we obviously do have a 30kb+ article. Common sense.— Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that the article about the music video is not notable enough. Details about each and every music video on YouTube can always be dug up and dumped into a standalone article; the only issue is whether or not it is notable to be worthy of such.

Also, the article has many unnecessary details: The introduction and "synopsis" section is similar, and in "Development and concept" section many information relating to David Dobkin can be removed. After a through clean-up, the article can be short enough to be merged with Sugar (Maroon 5 song). heyzec! 11:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge: Neither the video's notability nor the amount of information available about the video is particularly unusual. Moreover, the current article about the video is too long and could easily be condensed significantly without excising much content. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disco????

Disco???? --201.183.23.4 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sugar (Maroon 5 song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106172236/http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/ to http://www.billboard.com.br/tipo_lista/top-100/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305030907/http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/online.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=ALL&targetTime=2015&hitYear=2015&termGbn=year to http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/online.gaon?nationGbn=T&serviceGbn=ALL&targetTime=2015&hitYear=2015&termGbn=year
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hitlisten.nu/default.asp?w=24&y=2015&list=t40
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hitsdailydouble.com/news%26id%3D297039
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases

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) 07:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Luke as a producer

Considering the fact he had involvement in production of the song, like some instruments and such, shouldn’t be classed as a producer? Gavin the Otter (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

He is not credited as an official producer of the song. Please see here. Also, being involved in providing an instrumentation of a song, doesn't make the person a producer. Cheers! — Tom^(T2ME) 20:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)