Jump to content

Talk:We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeWe Are Never Ever Getting Back Together was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 18, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed

Mixed review on video

[edit]

I looked up the definition of demeanor and Jim Farber's review is a mix of positive and negative as he clearly states her tone and demeanor (or behavior) in the video is "conversational and sarcastic" which makes it a mixed review and even though there is more positive then negative it's still received mixed reviews so if you see anymore changes to the video's review back to positive please change it back to "mixed". Thanks. ^_^ Swifty*talk 18:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no reviews that say how its a complete rip-off of Michel Gondry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.50.138 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Swifty: You're misinterpreting the article -- "Like the single, Swift's tone and demeanor in the clip is conversational and sarcastic, ideally suited to simulating intimacy with her massive teen girl fan-base" should be interpreted here as "Swift acts in a conversational and sarcastic manner." Stating a video has some sarcastic/conversational elements does not indicate that it is in anyway negative; the author is stating that the role that Taylor Swift plays is a particular role. In fact, the article here quoted does not seem to be a review at all; rather, it is a gossip page article regarding the identity of the former boyfriend that the song is allegedly about. L.cash.m (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance at country radio

[edit]

Regarding the Hot Country Songs chart performance of "We Are Never Ever ... ," whereby the song's No. 13 debut being its peak position is pointed out, I wonder if it would be appropriate or notable to state that the song did spend several weeks in the top 20 (after falling from its peak in the song's second week on the chart) before descending further? That might shed some light and provide a little more background/context on the song's non-acceptance at country radio, and whatever conclusion the reader draws would not be up to us.[[Briguy52748 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)]][reply]

It's lack of success on country radio is pretty important - I would note that it debuted so high due to hourly plays on Clear Channel Communications stations, that it dropped (to number 18 or 19, I think) back the following week after the plays stopped, and that it never again reached its peak. It would also be important to note this is her first single to miss the top ten of the country chart entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article did already state that the song had missed the top 10. I guess my question was, before beginning its descent "for good" (for lack of a better term), the song had hung around in the top 20 for a few weeks -- was that notable enough to state in the article? [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)]][reply]
I think it would be notable only in the context of how it related to other songs; if, for instance, it stayed in the top 20 longer than any other song (or close to as long) then it would be significant. However, I suppose this is moot as the listing seems to say that it did eventually obtain number 1 status. L.cash.m (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is important in this case because it would have missed the top ten entirely were it not for a rule change that allowed pop airplay, streaming, and sales to count. Toa Nidhiki05 20:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That creates an interesting case, then -- one I'm not familiar with the rules on. If a change in the rules has an impact on chart performance, should it really be listed on the page for the song that is impacted, or should information about the rules remain on the page dealing specifically with charts? *added* after all, all songs going forth from the chart change will be impacted as well; would it be necessary to notate on each song's article that they were impacted by the change? L.cash.m (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could be on either, but it is important to note on this page because the song would have been Taylor's first to miss the country top ten. Instead, it is topping the country chart entirely off the strength of pop radio play and digital sales. As far as I am concerned, that is like saying a song topped the Hot 100 because of high digital sales - important background information for a song. Toa Nidhiki05
I agree with Toa. Under the current revision as of this writing, there is nothing at all that indicates the song was a relative flop at Country Airplay (any time a superstar artist misses the top 10 at Country Airplay, it's significant, and often deemed a flop). The current revision makes it read like this song was a huge hit at Country Airplay, which it was not. 16:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.232.195 (talk)

song length

[edit]

updated song length to match time shown by iTunes; please don't revert without explaining reason for revision here first L.cash.m (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different players and different stores frequently will display the length of the exact same MP3 file as being one second different in length, and that can show as being one second different than the official CD track length, which can, again, display as being one second different in different CD players. There's probably no more useless edit to perform than changing a track length by one second. Whatever you are changing it to is probably just as wrong as what it already was.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the edit is useless, I just want to establish a consensus so it stops being changed -- there have been multiple random edits (back and forth) on the time, and the vast majority of them haven't involved me. L.cash.m (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

temporary protection

[edit]

The page is temporarily protected due to an eruption of edit warring between groups regarding the Brasil Hot 100 peak positions of the song - and the source that should be used to provide that position. If there is legitimate reasoning why another site should be preferred over the official Billboard Hot 100 rankings, please make your case here. L.cash.m (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per MOS:CT. (non-admin closure)  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together → We are Never Ever Getting Back Together – Please put your reason for moving here. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC) The title is more appropriate. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Japan Year-end

[edit]

Here is a link http://www.billboard.com/charts/year-end/2013/japan-hot-100?page=1 --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together. 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:

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) 15:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together. 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:

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) 07:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electro-folk?

[edit]

A NY Times article described this song as "electro-folk". I am very curious... is it factually correct? (Given that "electro-folk" redirects to a genre that is barely related; plus contemporaneous reviews universally described this as dance-pop / pop rock rather than "folk") Ippantekina (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to neutrality and reliable source guidelines, all genres, irrespective of whether a Wikipedia editor agrees or not (we're not critics), should be best represented in the prose if a critical review explicitly states the genre for the song/album. BawinV (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it doesn't state that a genre should be disregarded just because it comes from one reliable source. If a fact is stated by more sources, then it shall be given a priority in the order of the prose, but this doesn't guarantee the removal of a minority critical opinion. Hence, the genres listed in prose/infobox should be in the order "dance pop • pop rock • electro-folk". BawinV (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Key Signature

[edit]

Ok, since when did anyone think the key signature is E-Flat Minor? ‘Cause the song clearly sounds like it’s in G-Major, which is a completely unrelated key from E-Flat Minor. KevinML (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We_Are_Never_Ever_Getting_Back_Together&oldid=1242680689"