Talk:Stereo Love

martina version

someone keeps on writing in

"Edward Maya does not endorse any of her works, denies ever working with her and considers Mia Martina's cover version explained by :the CP Records as a "remix" an infringement on his original song.

but nowhere on the his website does he actually say this. in particular, the word infringement does not appear anywhere.

what he does say is

I don't know this artist and I do not approve her!! Please help me to stop her to have concerts! Like this my tour will be saved!!

which doesn't really mean anything. Cat Music sold the rights to the song to Ultra, so there's no reason why Maya would have "know" (as in know personally ) or "approve" her (Since Cat Music would have been acting on his behalf).

it seems people out there really want to think that the Ultra version was "stolen" or "infringed" but i don't see evidence of anything like that. what i do see is that Ultra is using Maya's name to promote her Martina's concerts, which is what the issue is. --76.10.155.3 (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

non-original version

"release a non-original version of the song by Dj Team"

Can somebody elaborate what is meant by "non-original version"? Is a unofficial remix or a release of the original?

--Internet Nerd (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's just a cover version of the song. The instrumental and vocals are slightly different, but overall it's almost the same. DJ Team's version of the song has been released on iTunes in many countries before the proper version was. Here in the UK, DJ Team's version got into the top 30 (until the original was released). In the US it's managed to get into the top 500. DJ Team have covered other songs which got a lot of downloads on UK iTunes before the release date too, such as Alors on danse and Chica Bomb. Obviously people not in Europe won't really know these songs though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.8.52 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Video

Does anyone know where the video for the tune was shot? M J Duly 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe in Mykanos, Greece.--99.166.172.234 (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I heard one interview with Maya when he said that this video was filmed on Santorini Island, Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.225.201 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Stereo Love

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stereo Love's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BPI":

• From Robbie Williams: "Award Certification for "Angels"". BPI. Archived from the original on 3 January 2008. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
• From We No Speak Americano: "BPI – Certified Awards Search". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 2010-10-08.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Stereo Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hitlisterne.dk/yearlist.asp?list=download%2050
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107091832/http://www.einslive.de/musik/charts/2011/jahrescharts.jsp to http://www.einslive.de/musik/charts/2011/jahrescharts.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110121160735/http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=73 to http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=73
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703120450/http://www.promusicae.es/files/listasanuales/canciones/Top%2050%20Canciones%20Anual%20%28PUBLICAR%29%202010.pdf to http://www.promusicae.es/files/listasanuales/canciones/Top%2050%20Canciones%20Anual%20%28PUBLICAR%29%202010.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6ADT6SmKb?url=http://www.promusicae.org/files/listasanuales/radios/TOP%2020%202010-definitivo.pdf to http://www.promusicae.org/files/listasanuales/radios/TOP%2020%202010-definitivo.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.dk/?q=content%2Fguld-og-platin-i-august
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160128192330/http://www.infodisc.fr/Ventes_Single11.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Ventes_Single11.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en-ca.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsen/en_ca/documents/pdf/newsletters/billboard_canadian-update/Nielsen%20Music%20Canadian%20Update.pdf

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) 16:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Release date

The song was released on YouTube on August 31, 2009; earlier than the October 2009 date mentioned in the article.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious about that. When checking the source which is pointed to the release date of 17 September 2009, but there isn't anything about that date, not even a mention of Stereo Love on the page. The song is even mentioned on the site, but in another list (Uge 29 - 2010). And this video (that I'm trying to send to the Wayback Machine, in case it disappears from YouTube) proves that at least the extended version of the song has been around since the minimum 7 March 2009. When this song was actually released seems like an obscure subject indeed. Later I will hunt the far reaches of the internet for some information about the release date of the song. — Gaèlic ^talk 07:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Release dates of songs are indeed a fairly tricky thing to research about songs in general. What definition of "release date" are we using here? The release date on iTunes? If so, there are plenty of songs that were released on YouTube a lot sooner than they were released on iTunes! Seckends (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Avman89: @Gaèlic: @Seckends: The mistery has been solved :) Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Good work, we who enjoy this musical genre (I assume you are one too) appreciate your contribution to preserving its history. — — Gaèlic ^talk 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Seckends: Sorry for taking so long to respond. I consider (and I believe this should be the criterion for music articles, I could be wrong) the "release date" to be the date on which the song was first officially released, in any medium (radio or internet) by any station/website. — — Gaèlic ^talk 01:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gaèlic: Thank you! As a Romanian who is extremely proud of the 2008-2012 (cca) popcorn boom, I always work on consolidating information on these super popular songs, such as "Stereo Love" :) @Seckends: The release date for a single is always either radio or anywhere else on the internet (a music retailer, not YouTube). For example, Maya could have posted the song to YouTube on January 2009, but still the "Release date" would be February because that's when "Stereo Love" was released to radio on its own (as a single). Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stereo Love/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 13:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 07:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

This will be reviewed from today–tomorrow; I remember working together during my early days as a reviewer! --K. Peake 07:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and leda

• Wikilink techno to itself instead
• The ref is not needed for Cat when this is backed up in the body
• "and Moldovan-Romanian musician Vika Jigulina." → "that features a guest appearance from Moldovan-Romanian musician Vika Jigulina."

I think "featuring" is enough. Modified it accordingly.

• Add a comma after debut studio album and make this the sentence after the writing/uncredited contribution sentences

Comma added, but I disagree with the second part. What album a song is part of is usually covered in the first two sentences of the lead. I don't see any reason why this should come later in the lead.

• ""Stereo Love" was" → "The song was"
• ""Stereo Love" is a" → "It is a"

Disagree here. In the previous sentence we talk about "Bayatılar" and the contract. It is helpful to keep "Stereo Love" for the reader to precisely know what we are referring to

• Wikilink techno to itself
• The lovesickness part does not seem to be backed up; maybe re-word to something like "a love interest" per the body?

The source says "It's mournful, [...] pierced through by Vika's icy sobs. She's sad and wants her loved one to know about it". This is basically what lovesickness is. It's just another way of saying what I wrote in the composition section.

• "around the track's release. It prominently" → "around the time of release. The song prominently"
• "noting its universal appeal." → "noting the universal appeal."
• I don't think Portugal should be listed with the other number ones as this was on a Digital Songs chart, also why is Switzerland not listed?

I think Portugal is justified since this is the only chart for Portugal that we have available for that time period. Switzerland is not included because the song only hit number one on the Romandy chart, which only represents a small region in Switzerland that speaks (I believe) French.

• "It was a number-one in" → "The song was a number-one in"
• "Maya is alleged not" → "Maya was alleged not"
• "An accompanying music video for "Stereo Love" was" → "An accompanying music video was"
• Remove overly obvious wikilink on Americas
• Per this being an award, move the Top Dance Song to the sentence after reception in the above para

Background

• Merge with the below section and retitle to Background and release
• Remove introduction to who Edward Maya is, as that is sufficient in the lead
• "scene in 2006 while being a student at the National University of Music Bucharest, contributing" → "scene in 2006, when he was a student at the National University of Music Bucharest and contributed"

Release

• Make these the second/third paras of the above section
• Move the album release to being the last one of the first para for chronological order

This wouldn't help the chornological order either since the last paragraph begins with "In 2009, Spinnin' Records...". I think it fits nicely to state what album the song is part of right after naming its initial release, regardless if the album was released years later.

• "Digital Dog, Michael Mind Project,[15]" → "Digital Dog, the Michael Mind Project,[15]"
• "released CDs in" → "released CDs for "Stereo Love" in"
• "distributed in the United Kingdom" → "distributed in the UK"

This could be done, however the article already writes out every instance of United States (except for the US Billboard Hot 100, as it's referred to like this) and United Kingdom (except for the UK singles chart, as it's referred to like this). I would keep it "United Kingdom" for consistency. Judging by the MoS, both the abbreviated and written out versions are allowed.

Composition

• Wikilink techno to itself instead

Interpolation dispute

• I would suggest aligning the image to the left since the next one is on the right
• Prose is good

Critical reception and accolades

• Remove speech marks around polarizing as this is not a direct quote from the source
• Remove wikilink on North America per WP:OVERLINK
• "New York Daily News reported" → "The staff of the New York Daily News reported"
• "borders on parody"." → "borders on parody."" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences
• Last para looks good!

Commercial performance

• Img looks good!
• First para looks good too!
• "to the United Kingdom and" → "to the UK and"

See my remark above.

Initial success in 2009

• Pipe Nielsen Music Control to Luminate (company)
• "It ended up as" → "The track ended up as"

Commercial success in 2010 and 2011

• "It was a number-one hit" → "The track was a number-one hit"
• Mention the bodies that issued each certification as well as the countries they were in

Every mention of a certification already also mention the name of the certifiying body. It is superfluous to mention the country when it's already in the name of the body. For Italy and Spain, the body mentions the name of the country in Italian and Spanish, respectively, but it is obvious from the context of the sentence that we are talking about Italy and Spain.

• "where it peaked at" → "where the track peaked at"
• Mention that the RIAA certification was in the US

I think the is obvious since there is "America" in the name of the certifying body.

Promotion

• Where is it directly sourced that the music video was removed from YouTube?

The source gives the link to the music video, which is not available anymore if you try to access it.

• Remove overly obvious wikilink on Americas

Mia Martina remix

• Looks good!

Label disputes

• "for two million euro" → "for two million euros"

Other usage

• Good

Track listings

• Good, love the addition of extra track lists too!

Charts

Weekly charts

• Shouldn't the Canadian charts subsection of Billboard charts only be wikilinked for Canada AC since the rest constitute overlinks?

Everything should be linked in that table since it is sortable.

• Wikilink Euro Digital Song Sales per MOS:LINKSECT for consistency

Sadly the link comes from a template that I cannot change.

• Should France download be included when France already is?

I don't see any mention of this at WP:GOODCHARTS. Digital Songs are also included alongside the US Billboard Hot 100, so I assume including the France download chart is allowed.

• Overlinking of TopHit after the first table
• Rest of charts section is good!

Certifications

• Good

Release history

• Should unknown release dates really be listed here?

I don't think this is a problem. I have done this in several other GAs.

See also

• Good

Notes

• Good

References

• Copyvio will not work, but this looks clean!
• Cite a work/publisher for refs 3, 93, 96
• Pipe Complex to Complex (magazine) on ref 28
• Pipe Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique to SNEP on ref 61
• After ref 101, why are some refs citing YouTube as via and others as publisher? One only for consistency makes sense.

For ref 113 I wouldn't leave YouTube as the publisher, since the publisher isn't an "official channel". It is a fan account (but the video still shows that Grupo Extra did a cover of the song). Otherwise I solved the issues.

• Wikilink Monitor Latino on ref 133
• Does ref 184 have MOS:CAPS issues or is that how it is stylized?

"MAHASZ" is the short version for Magyar Hanglemezkiadók Szövetsége, the Hungarian name of the Association of Hungarian Record Companies.

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; sorry for the slight delay! --K. Peake 20:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: Thank you for your review! Will get to this in the next few days. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: Hello again. I have solved all your comments except for where I left comments. Feel free to respond if you don't agree. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Nice job again, although I believe in the lead you should only use the song's title once per para and also do not use "the track" since it is either this or "the song" and you clearly preferred for the latter. The Portuguese Digital Songs position needs to be written out in the body, techno should be wikilinked to itself and change "where it peaked at" to using the track instead. Another suggestion that is not fully required for this to be GA-quality; I would prefer if you named the United States at the RIAA certification because America could refer to anything from a collection of those countries to the uninformed reader. --K. Peake 17:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: Thank you for your response! I do not believe in the song title and "track" argument. Several articles shown as reference articles at the Songs MoS, including "What You Waiting For?" and "S&M" use the song's title more than once in paragraphs and use "song" and "track" at the same time. The other issues I have all fixed. Let me know what you think. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• ✓ Pass now, I understand our disagreements but edited out the song's title from twice in the first para since that becomes redundant to me. --K. Peake 07:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)