Talk:Let Me Hold You

Untitled

The music video description still contains some instances of colloquial language ("no music to grind to", "it is none other than Bow Wow himself"), and is still essentialy a scene list. --FuriousFreddy 10:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please use correct edit summaries: That was not cleanup, but an indiscrimnate deletion of information. If you think there is only POV language still there, let me know, but dont delete information. Ive also cleaned up the music video in those two examples you gave. And if we're going to be nPOV, dont use "hit single".OmegaWikipedia 11:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That was not a deletion; it was a cleanup of fannish writing. "Hit single" is not POV when the criteria for a hit (top 40 of a national chart) is clearly defined. If there is POV language, I am not required to "let you know", but I am supposed to clean it up. --FuriousFreddy 16:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is i clearly defined that a song that breaches the Top 40 is a hit? There is no such thing. Many songs breach the Top 40 for a week, and then drop quickly and overall are usually not considered hits. It is very hypocritical of you to claim to be removing POV language, then to be doing it yourself. Once again, if there is POV language eliminate it, but do not combine three seperate sections into one messy section, and do not delete charts. OmegaWikipedia 17:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not tell other editors how to fix your articles when they need improvement. And I've never heard the term "hit single" referred to as POV; you're reaching. We even have an article on one-hit wonders here, which defines exactly what a "hit" is considered to be by Billboard magazine. The term can be removed, but, please, do not try to twist issues around and call people hypocrites in a retaliatory manner (especially when you yourself use the term "hit" in several of your articles). Also, "#1s" need to be unbolded, that is indeed a point-of-view. --FuriousFreddy 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I will tell you what I need to tell you if youre being rude and hypocritical and immature (as other users have noted). I suggest you follow JKelly's lead and leave constructive criticism instead of ranting and whining without telling us what is the problem. This is why there is always a communication problem between us. You complain, and I ask you what I need to fix, and then you rant and rant that you're too good to tell me (based on your quote above saying you had no obligation to tell what the problem was). And you wonder why we have problems?

And no, Im not reaching. If I use hit, I'll explain what justifies it in the chart performance. I dont think I use it in headers because as you know several songs that hit the Top 40 drop like a rock. Overall analysis on whether a song is a hit or not is usually based on overall performance, not peak. So a song which consistently stayed around 41-45 on the Hot 100 is not a hit, but a song which went to #39 for one week and then dropped is? The One hit wonder article may define it, but by no means is it authority. What makes a single a hit usually is how it did overall, not a chart position without explaination. OmegaWikipedia 01:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not being rude, hostile, or immature (all comments that have been lobbied at you from many people). However, I could very easily be all of the above. I don't make the rules for what consitutes a hit single, and, as far as your comment, I have never see nyou justify usage of the term "hit". And, as I say every time I talk to you, I have told you in endless and excessive detai lwhat is wrong with all of these articles as a whole, why it is wrong, and what needs to be fixed. I don't have to explai nit to you because, if you read an analyzed how encyclopedia articles ar written, the reasoning should be obvious. I am not required anywhere to sit an editor down and explain in explicit detail how and why I am cleaning up "their" (and I use that term with quotation marks for a reason) article unless I am making substantive changes; but if they ask, I will tell them. I explained in specific detail what I was changing and why, and I have done so every time you have asked. You're not paying attention, and you're trying to start conflict where there shouldn't be any. You are the only editor I have ever encountered in the entire time I have been here that resits, complains, reverts, and raises controversy over someone trying to improve their work. If I didn't want to try and iprove the articles, I wouldn't be pressing for them to be cleaned up. It simply doesn't make sense.

Yes, you are being rude, hostile, and immature. I can find people who have said such things int he past or feel that way about you. I have justified hits before in the chart performance section. No, you didnt do that. What you did was remove charts, combined three sections into one and removed important information. That was a SUBSTANSIVE change. I asked why you did and get a rude response in which you justiifed cleanup and refused to explain your answers. You are the only editor I have ever met with a communication problem liek this. If you want to improve the articles, I am ALL FOR THAT. But do not drastically remove information and combine three sections into one, and then refuse to explain when asked.

Please sign your posts, and do not intercut into others as it ruins the readability and flow of the talk page. I'm sure I could find double (triple if I'm lucky) the same number of people to saythe same about you, and to comment on the quality of these articles (or lack therof). I explained in explicit detail the edits I made (and why) on the 20th of October at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pop music issues, so there is no truth to your claim that I was rude and refused to explain my cleanups when you asked. --FuriousFreddy 02:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You think I have some sort of hatred or "problem" with Mariah Carey or pop music. One of the first things I ever asked you was "are you tryign to get the Mariah Carey article nominated as an FA? That would be great." People like you thrive off of drama, controversy, and having your way. I'm not getting my way by going through all of this; I'm not doing this for my health, my personal beliefs, my opinions, or for any sort of fun or enjoyment. I am doing this to help make Wikipedia a reliable and scholarly reference, bigger and better than the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is possible, but not with people like you causing drama and resisting the regular operations of the encyclopedia because you don't want your work edited. If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, please don't submit it. --FuriousFreddy 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I dont thrive off drama or controversy. I am doing this to make Wikipedia reliable. You putting in infactual information (like the thing in I Know What You Want) only brings us down. Who said I dont want my work edited? Look below to what JKelly and I discussed. I want my work to be edited by reasonable people, not angry people who edit first and talk later, and then dont talk at all over what was needed. OmegaWikipedia 02:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm hardly angry. And I'm putting in infactual information. I actually read from the back of Busta's CD the correct billing information; that is hardly inaccurate. You, however, tried to add all manner of infactual information to the rhythm and blues page that you couldn't back up with verifiable references when it was required of you. You're not making Wikipedia reliable by what you are doing. I don't edit first and talk later; I have never failed to explain an edit when required (however, if I explain something, then it is up to the other party to read the explanation). These aren't your articles, they don't belong to you, and I am not required by anyone, anywhere, to inform you when I change them, or if I need to nominate them at AfD, or any other changes that need to be done. If asked, certainly I must explain, but if I am working towardsthe betterment of the project, I don't have to ask you for permission to edit or cleanup articles you write, and I don't have to tell you what I cleaned up (although, if I do anything substantice, I ususally explain it anyway for convienience--but then again, there's a reason for the use of diffs). All that is required of me is an edit summary. --FuriousFreddy 02:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am cutting some text from the article here for discussion. While the information in some of the passages below is useful to the reader, it is, at the moment, unverifiable, as it is without sources, or falls under original research. Other passages need copyediting for clarity.

1. "Let Me Hold You" is one of the first serious songs about a relationship that Bow Wow has recorded; previous songs covered teenage drama or pre-teen "puppy love". In the song, Bow Wow lets a woman in his life know how he feels about her; instead of focusing on the sexual aspect of a relationship, he realizes that embracing is also an important aspect ("You can never go wrong, if you let me hold you.")

It should be possible to include a sourced version of the above. Something like "Bow Wow's earlier singles (such as foo and fum) discussed romantic love in the voice of a teenager (in foo) or in the voice of someone suffering from unrequited love (in fum). In "Let Me Hold You", however, the singer is addressing a girlfriend with whom he is in a serious relationship".

I've taken to your suggestion and added something alogn the lines of that back in.

1. On the component charts, the song nearly topped the airplay component (Hot 100 Airplay) by peaking at #2.

This sentence needs re-writing, such that someone who does not know what a "component chart" is can understand it.

Ok, I'll rewrite it.

1. Although its airplay (Pop 100 Airplay) was able to breach the Top 10 (at #9), it was held back into the Top 20 by its downloads (The Pop 100 and Hot 100 both use Hot Digital Songs)

This seems like extraneous detail to me. What's the importance of this information?

Its important to note because although the song had strong airplay, it could break into the top 10 because it had bad downloads.

1. (It was held back by the aforementioned Carey single "We Belong Together")

"Held back" needs to be re-phrased. Do we need to know what single was in the number one position on that chart in any case? Does that help us understand this song?

Actually, my mistake, I was thinking of the preceding single when I wrote that.

Oh wait, is there in refernce to the R&B chart? I think it does help us understand the song, as it spent several weeks @ #2 and should have been #1, but a song which tied the record for most weeks at #1 on the R&B chart held it back.

1. Bow Wow's main genre chart

What does this mean? I've never heard this expression before. Does it mean that Bow Wow has, historically, done better on that chart? Or does it mean that the reader should be less impressed by that chart position because it is genre-specific? What was the editor's intent in adding this line?

Sorry, I didn't know how to phrase this. What I meant was that Bow Wow is a rap artist, so that is his main chart, just like Green Day's main chart is usually the modern rock chart, and Jessica Simpson's main chart would be the pop chart.

1. The music video was directed by Bryan Barber. It starts off with a pre-song sequence as a female friend of Bow Wow's (who may or may not be his girlfriend) receiving a cell phone call from Bow Wow. After some chit-chat in which the girl complains about boredom, she excuses herself from the phone for a moment to answer someone knocking at her door. It is Bow Wow who come to suprise the girl. The two embrace, and Bow Wow proceeds to invite her to a house party which they then proceed to go to. While Bow Wow is social and talks to several friends like Omarion, the girl does not socialize with others. Bow Wow later gets alcohol for the two of them, but instead of talking to her, he proceeds to ignore her to talk to another girl. Due to these actions, the girl starts to leave the party. Bow Wow notes this action, excuses himself from the other girl, and proceeds to catch up with this girl.

No apologies are issued, but like the lyrics of the song, Bow Wow holds her in his arms, and they reconcile. Following this incident, the party proceeds to be void of disagreeemnt and conflict. Omarion can be seen singing the song's chorus with a girl of his own, and Jermaine Dupri himself makes a cameo at the party. The DJ suddenly messes up, as his record has fallen off the turn table. With no music to dance to, the guests of the party immediately cry foul, and the DJ tries to fix the situation. He is able to fix the music and the party returns to its normal status, while Bow begins to have problems again as the girl is acting up again. Bow Wow is able to contain the situation, and he and the girl go home. Although, they have reconciled again, they do not speak much to each other on the way home. Bow Wow then drops her off and the video ends on cliffhanger. The story actually does not end and a "To Be Continued" banner flashes across the end of the video. (The video serves as the preuqel to "Like You")

This took me longer to read than it would have to watch the video. There is no need to give a prose description of the entire screenplay. Our plot summary for Gone With the Wind is shorter than this! I have replaced the text with User:FuriousFreddy's concise summary.

As Freddy's version is not a completely accurate description of the video, I have added some correct detials, but have kept to a concise format. OmegaWikipedia 18:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I also made a number of style edits. Jkelly 17:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to OmegaWikipedia's edits

I notice that my clever numbering completely failed to work.

• Song theme: OmegaWikipedia, that was fast! I still have some concerns about the text, so I feel that the re-addition, even if it uses my brilliant phrasing, was a little premature. Let's be specific about which songs we're talking about. In which songs has Bow Wow sung about love, and in which ones did he express "puppy love" / "unrequited love", etc. The more specific we are, the less it looks like personal opinion or broad generalization. I'm not going to go cut it at the moment, but let's get some source for verifiability into the statement.
• Component chart: Is there a Wp article on what a component chart is? I didn't find one. Perhaps effort would be better spent on an article about them that can be linked to. Just a thought.
• Downloads: Oh! I get it. That detail now seems more important to me than the actual number of the chart position. If the song got a lot of airplay (which is controlled by radio station playlists) but fans didn't bother to download it, that is certainly relevant. The phrasing should make this clear, and it will be easy to source with all of that chart information you have provided.
• Held back: I guess I just don't care for the expression, as it sounds like we are speculating that the song would have been at number one without such stiff competition, which we cannot know. I'm torn between keeping a reign on how much chart discussion there is and explaining that fact with different phrasing.
• Main genre chart: I'm also having some trouble with phrasing, because, more than just about anything else, that sentence is really tweaking me and I cannot quite seem to express why that is. How has Bow Wow performed on that chart before? If he's had reliably better numbers, we can just state that rather than, er, "gluing" him to a single genre.
• Video paragraph: It's still a little longer than I'd like, but it's a lot better, and the length of both this paragraph and the long chart discussion won't seem so imposing once there is more material about the song itself in the article. I am going to make some small edits for spelling after this, but I'm content with this as a compromise.

Thought? Jkelly 19:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable compromise, JKelly. Thank you for being very understanding (unlike Freddy who yells and and rants and reverts and doesnt explain his actions) OmegaWikipedia 01:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, play nice. This is the first time you and I have ever collaborated on an article, whereas you and User:FuriousFreddy have been working together for months. He and User:Mel Etitis, as I understand this whole thing, have gone over the same points with you a number of times, things like the Manual of Style, No original research, references etc.

Oh, thats not exactly the case, and I can explain if youd like to hear more. Actually Mel violates the MoS which states that numbers can be written out as numbers. Freddy has explained to me things which I understand. What I dont understnad is him deleting imporant chart information and combining three sections into one and then removing 1/2 the charts, which really had nothing to do with any policies, but his personal preference. OmegaWikipedia 02:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A stantdard of encyclopedia writing is conciseness. Any article on anything can be long, and not all information (not even all factual information) needs to be included in an article. It isn't my "personal preference" as faras what charts are listed; there's just no sense in the idea of leaving them all and having articles loaded with statistics and no actual content. --FuriousFreddy 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And we are being concise. We're not listing week by week breakdowns on every chart. OmegaWikipedia 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm all new and fresh, so of course I'm a lot more willing to spend time chatting about changes. Imagine if you and I work things out here and then again somewhere else, and again somewhere else and eventually I just started to edit the articles in the manner I did here with an edit summary "Rm POV as we have discussed before", you'd think that I was being just as unreasonable and non-communicative as User:FuriousFreddy, right? I mean, the whole point of repeatedly collaborating with someone should be that the process becomes a lot more efficient, because the collaborators know each other's weaknesses and styles, and can be succinct and fast, rather than having these drawn-out discussions. In any case, I have no complaints about how this is going (and to be perfectly honest, that is a bit of a pleasent surprise), so let's get back to business.

Hah, my reputation truly proceeds me then. Most of Freddy's problem are actually more content based, but then if he finds one example of POV he seems to blow it up and distort the main issues OmegaWikipedia

Untrue. I ususally fix any POV edits I see, but, of course, you enjoy reverting. --FuriousFreddy 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Untrue. If enjoyed it like you accuse me of, I would not have put those two points above in OmegaWikipedia 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Tell me about the other love songs that Bow Wow has performed. Which ones were you thinking of when you were writing that this track showed some more maturity on his part? And where can I look at the lyrics? Jkelly 02:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC) (who is apparaently too lazy to just Google that information)

Off the top of my head, "Puppy Love" would be a good start. OmegaWikipedia 02:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Tell me that's not a crass and conflict-starting comment. That is a personal attack, and if you were a professional, you would remove that comment. I have explained to you, many times, what needs to be cleaned up in articles, and I explained, in specific and explicit detail, what I changed in this article, and why. However, you are not required to explain to an editor what you are cleaning up in an article and why, unless it is something of substantial controversy (like changing a large paragraph of incorrect facts) beyond working ot make an article encyclopediaic. Why did another person have to come and clean up the article, making edits very similar to the ones I did?

Let me show you a crass statement, "If there is POV language, I am not required to "let you know", but I am supposed to clean it up." I asked you what the problem was. Instead of being professional, you basically said you were too good for me, and didnt have to tell what the problem was. Of course there is "obligation", but considering we are working to fix the article, it doesnt make sense for you to refuse to explain your actions, and its tone was very rude. Thats all were asking. If you tell me like JKelly does. Then we can fix it. Instead you yelled at me and refused to disclose what the issue was. OmegaWikipedia 01:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not crass. I am not required to let you or anyone else know how and why I am cleaning something up befor I do it, unless I make substantial, pageshifitng changes. I combined three sections into one because sections with only one paragraph make the flow between paragraphs difficult if you are using the default skin. I told you what the problem was with this aritcle the day before yesterday, and I have told you endlessly -- on talk pages, on user pages, on RfC pages, and even over AIM at two o clock in the morning when I had a job to report to in six hours--what is wrong wit hthis page, several others, and manu of your edits in general. Why didn't you listen? Why don't you listen? You accuse me of yelling at you all of the time. How am I yelling? Trust me, you have not heard me yelling or angry (because, in such a case, the language would be a lot, a lot, different), and you never will for as long as I am here. However, I ma not going to hold you by the hand like a child everytime you do wrong. I am going to be firm, but not rude. You contantly run around telling people that "unlike Freddy, who rants and yells without explanation" line, but as far as what I think about you? You just don't understand all (some, maybe even most, but not all) of the principles in professional-tone writng. Now, I don't hold this against you, but you have been informed (time ad time again, and by far more than one person) of what you need to do. It's up to you to do it, if you want to stop running into conflict with people. --FuriousFreddy 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is crass. That WAS substantial. The chart removal especially since that is not a violation of any policy. You are not holding me by the hand by any means, so that is a very rude assertion. The same way I think I am being your therapist because you obviously have many issues which cause you to act very dramatic. I understand the principles. What this boils to if your personal preference (which you continue to deny). You need to accept your personal issues Freddy, and get over them OmegaWikipedia 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

So, not only have you told me I lack reason, and now you say that I have mental issues and need a therapist? That's three. You're no therapist of mine, but, because I am not on a quest ot be rude, I am not going to sink to your level and tell you about yourself. I'm not here to battle you; I'm here to edit and fix aticles. And that is just what I will do. I don't have any personal issues. --FuriousFreddy 03:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand why you don't know how to work with other people, and choose to make comments like the above, which are not only untrue, but show poor taste and a lack of professionalism. I have no direct ill-will towards you, but I (and several others) find significant fault in your edits and contributions. You seem to resent me for "messing with" "your" articles. These articles do not belong to you. If they need ot be cleaned up, they will be cleaned up, and that is simply how it needs to be.

I know how to work with other people. You don't. All of your responses have been rude and hostile to me. JKelly knows how to work with people. He listed issues with the article and responded very politely. You wouldnt explain what the problem is and justified your edits witout explanation. OmegaWikipedia 01:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I get very tired of trying to reason with you, because it is absolutely impossible. You don't listen to anything you don't want to here, and you don't understand encyclopedic standards and writing. You force people to drag themselves down to your level after endless days and nights of debate. But realize this: so long as you continue to cause problems, you will not be "left alone"; if it isn't me that's working to correct your errors, it will be someone else.

You get tired of reasoning with me? I get tired of reasoning with you, as you seem to lack any. I asked you what the problem was very politely. I got hostile responses and screaming from you.

The second personal attack of the day, and this one goes far below the belt, and is below anything I've ever said about you, on Wikipedia or otherwise. I, in fact, demand an apology. The only lapse in my reasoning is why I'm sitting here feeding you wit hthe controversy you want. For the fourth (fifth?) time, I told you what the problem was the other day. Where you paying attention? I have not screamed at you, and I am not being hostile (but I do sound like a broken record. I'm going to make a template so that I don't have to keep typing the same responses every time we have one of these debates). VIa copy and paste from above: I explained in explicit detail the edits I made (and why) on the 20th of October at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pop music issues, so there is no truth to your claim that I was rude and refused to explain my cleanups when you asked. --FuriousFreddy 03:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And, furthermore, this back-and-forth is not going to be done for every music article in this encyclopedia that needs to be fixed. It isn't logical, given the amount of articles that need to be fixed. --FuriousFreddy 01:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts on expansion

The meat of this article, as it stands, is a detailed analysis of its chart positioning. I don't think that serves the reader well; it is unlikely to be what a reader comes to a Wikipedia article looking for. In thinking about how to expand this article, I would encourage including:

• Information on the relationship between Bow Wow and Omarion. How did they come to work together? What contributions did each artist make?
• A discussion of the song's themes, but in a version that is properly referenced and doesn't contain speculation, value judgments, or personal reactions. Comparison to earlier songs should link to those songs that have articles, or be footnotes.
• Recording information. Where was the song recorded? I cut the adjective "sped-up" for being informal prose, but there definitely should be some detail on the use of the sample. Has the song somehow escaped being remixed? Jkelly 18:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

From my personal experience, I have spoken to users who have praised the chart analysis of the article, so I dont think that needs to be removed, but I agree with you on your points and I will be looking for more information to add to those points if I can. OmegaWikipedia 18:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've heard, from many people, the exact opposite, especially from people who only read articles and don't edit (that is, the target audience). Chart analysis is a problem when it exists as the meat of an article, or as its largest section. An encyclopedia article on a song should establish notability beyond details of numbers. --FuriousFreddy 20:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Continued comments for improvement.

This is getting better, but there are still a few problems (some minor, some not as minor). I am not going to edit the article; I will instead post the changes I would have made here.

• The year the single came out needs to be in the first sentence of the article. The record label should be mentioned somewhere in the header as well. Omarion should not be mentioned in parentheticals (it is probably best to state in the opening sentence that the song is "a single by Bow Wow featuring Omarion" in the header, and move the information about it being the first single fro mthe fourth album to either a semicolon seperated section of the sentence or to a new second sentence.

Disagree, especially when singles crossover years. The record label? Why? Whether Bow Wow was on Columbia Records or not is not important in the header here. The emphasis on Bow Wow is to keep a consistent format between articles. I think the header is fine the way it is.

• Omarion is an R&B singer, and B2K is properly termed either an "R&B group" or a "boy band" (calling them a band is probably not correct, because they do not play instruments).

• This is probably more the fault of Wikipedia's markup than anything, but the level two headers make the article hard to read; they disrupt the flow. It would probably be better to seperate the article as it stands now, especially because it is so short, into two level-two sections: one on the record (I have no idea what to call it), and one marked "chart performance". Reduce the other headings to level thre, so that there is not a large rule running across pages, seperating sections that are supposed to flow together while reading.

• Why are "#1" positions bolded? Is there any neutral-point-of-view reasoning that can be given for why this is done?

It can help us see what charts the single hit #1 on. Just like articles on Olympians have the gold medel emphasized in their singlebox.

Please sign your posts. If someone needs a bold font to be able to read "#1", then there is a problem with either their eyesight or their literacy. I don't see any Olympians with gold medals emphasized in their infobox; please provide a link. Reguardless, that justification still isn't a neutral point of view (a quick glance at the Olympics articles show those too have NPOV problems--"an amazing record?"). --FuriousFreddy 02:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is the next big issue to tackle: the large number of chart positions given. This article is only a mild case, although t would be aggrivated if/when world chart positions are added, and the result is a twenty-plus item table filled with chart positions. We definitely need to cut back on the numbers of charts included, but set rules should be established for what (and how many) chart positions should be listed (otherwise, what is to stop someone from adding Cashbox sales records to articles about older songs, and you will eventually end up wit hthe article stub that's three snetences of prose and twenty to thirty rows of chart information. An observer of these articles said to me last night "They print Billboard magazine for a reason." Let's take each chart and work to analyze its importance and figure out which ones stay and which ones go. We should really try to cut it down to about five; possibly using allmusic.com as guide for which charts to include and/or disinclude:

• • Billboard Hot 100: obviously important

• • Billboard Hot 100 Airplay & Billboard Hot 100 Singles Sales: components of the above. It doesn't seem neccessary to mention these two, since they make up the other; if there is a significant anomaly in sales vs. airplay, that information should be covered in the text, and a reference to this information should be included there in prose (and not in a chart).

• • Billboard Pop 100: very new, but appears important

• • Billboard Pop 100 Airplay: same as the other component charts

• • Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles & Tracks: important for artists marketed to African-Amerian venues.

• • Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay & Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles Sales: same as the other component charts

• • Billboard Hot Rap Tracks: important for hip-hop artists such as Bow Wow

• • Billboard Hot Digital Songs & Billboard Hot Digital Tracks: should probably only be mentioned in the case of an anomaly, and then only in the prose.

• • Billboard Mainstream Top 40: reasonably important

• • Billboard Rhythmic Top 40: reasonably important

• • Billboard Hot Ringtones: seems arbitrary

So in this case, we could leave the Hot 100, Pop 100, R&B chart, Rap chart, Mainstream Top 40, and Rhythmic Top 40, giving us six items and relieving the article from having an entire third of its legnth being dedicated to a table discussing its chart performances. Even better, since most of these articles include chart analyses anyway, and the infobox will contain data for the major international charts, is there any real reason to have chart positions in these articles; it almost seems redundant? Another possible solution (working from previously established precedent) would be to consolidate all of the chart positions for the various singles for an album. This data could be included in a subpage for the album ("Chart statistics for Illmatic", or something similar). Taking TUF-KAT's suggestion from the RfC talk page, such information could be moved to Wikidata when it gets up and running.

OmegaWikipedia, I already know and understand that you prefer all of the chart data to be present, and I have just detailed my suggestions here. But what do outside parties think or suggest.--FuriousFreddy 22:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

See, Freddy, you said youre in the music industry right? Surely, you know the difference between Pop 100 Airplay and Top 40 Mainstream, and it really doesnt make sense for you to keep the one and not the other. Someone complained about including the R&B chart. To avoid any bias, it any makes sense to include them allOmegaWikipedia 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What that means is, we can't dump all the information we can find into an article. Article quality standards are against a third or more of an article being made up of lists, unlessthe article is itself specifically supposed to be a list. Therefore, something needs to be done, and it doesn't make sense for articles to list so many chart positions. Yes, I know the difference between Pop 100 Airplay, and Mainstream Top 40, but in reguards to writing an encyclopedia article on a song, neither of them are important enough that they have to be included. And there is no reason for anyone to object ot the inclusion of the R&B chart, especially in reference to black artists, as the chart shows how hip hop and R&B songs perform in their primary market. --FuriousFreddy 02:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes you support Mainstream Top 40? I've heard people before argue against including the R&B chart before as it is predominately an Africian Americian chart and could be seen as discriamtion in a sense. I dont agree with this either, and our best bet is to include all the Billboard charts, as they are all national charts. Everyone has a different opinion. While some people think R&B is irrelevant, some people like you think Airplay is irrelevant. OmegaWikipedia 02:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::The inclusion of the R&B chart is hardly discrimination, and that is hardly a substantive argument for its disinclusion. The R&B cchart has singificant ntoability, dating back over several decades, and it sure as anything should be included long before a Pop 100 Airplay chart is included. In several periods of history, the 1950s and the 1980s in particular, songs became hits which charted high on the R&B chart, but did not do so on the pop chart. When speaking of artists primarily of interest to urban contemporary radio and traditionally Afircan-American markets, R&B charts are very essential. The only reason the Airpay is irrelevant, in reference to this project and in the interest of brevity and less use of long tables in articles, is because it's a component of another chart. If this were a specialized music database, dedicated to extensive and comprehensive coverage of music, then including them wouldn't be a question. However, that's not what the Wikipedia is.--FuriousFreddy 02:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said about the lead. I was the one that labelled Omarion a pop music singer, since that is what is in the lead in the article about him. I never notice the bolding of "#1", but it is actually a problem, because Wp's search function gives extra weight to articles that have the search term bolded. That is why we use bolding for variants on the article title. We shouldn't bold for emphasis. It is nice to think of Wikidata being able to hold charts for everything, but it doesn't yet exist, so what charts to include is going to continue to be a contentious problem. In all honesty, I don't think I have ever wondered to myself "What chart position did this song reach?" when thinking about a song, but I suppose that it is in some way encyclopedic. At the very least it is verifiable. Jkelly 23:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Chart positions are indeed important, but there needs to be some sort of cut-off in their use. Articles on songs don't appear notable if their content is made up completely or almost of chart performance data. --FuriousFreddy 02:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Other songs for comparison

When I search wikipedia for "Puppy Love" the only musical result is a redlink for a Donny Osmond song. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this isn't a cover of that song, right? Jkelly 02:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"Puppy Love" came out in about 2002 or so. Bow Wow was still a young teenager, and he was still on SoSo Def, when the record came out. It's not a cover of the Donny Osmond song. I'm sure Jermaine Dupri wrote and produced it, and I beleive Jagged Edge has a guest appearance. There's probably not an article for it here. A Google search will quickly find you the lyrics, but beware of popups. --FuriousFreddy 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the ad warning, but I was lucky enough to find the lyrics at kiwilyrics. Jkelly 03:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Component charts

I'm tempted to refactor this page and archive it. This entire conversation is from one day, right? In any case, I was quite serious above when I suggested that an article should be written on composite charts. Since I've already mentioned that I neither know much about composite charts nor am particularly interested in charts in general, I'm probably not the person to do it. It's my impression, however, that neither of those things are true for either FuriousFreddy or OmegaWikipedia. If that article, which I do volunteer to copyedit, were given as much attention as the above back-and-forth, we could be putting it up for Wikipedia:Peer review soon. Jkelly 04:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Er... there is an article called Composite chart. It's an oddly-formatted one on astrology. That's not helpful. What I meant was Component chart, as above. Jkelly 04:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't really see the neccessity for a seperate article. Music charts is all three paragraphs long and could use some information. Oh, and that sort of conversation up there will never happen again. Trust me on this. --FuriousFreddy 04:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're quite right. Music chart is not long enough to split off into any kind of seperate article. We can write component chart as a section and link to it with Music chart#Component charts. I just moved it to Music chart instead of Music charts, btw. Jkelly 17:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Let Me Hold You.jpg

Image:Let Me Hold You.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Let Me Hold You.jpg

Image:Let Me Hold You.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Let Me Hold You. 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/20131023115955/http://fdr.com.ua/compilation/U/25/ to http://fdr.com.ua/compilation/U/25/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 15:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)