Talk:Check on It

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCheck on It has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starCheck on It is part of the B'Day series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 16, 2011Good article nomineeListed
September 9, 2013Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Chart trajectory removed[edit]

In the words of user:FuriousFreddy: do we really need to know exactly how a song performed week-by-week on the charts, in the context of an encyclopedia article? Extraordinary Machine 14:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useful information, but it isn't necessary. The perfomance of a song can be encyclopedic, but I'm not saying it will always be. I just think it's a refreshing add-on to an article – (empoor) 11:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with it, many other songs have trajectories, why not this one? -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 23:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Maybe it's not the most encyclopedic information, but it is useful – (empoor) 07:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia: we're supposed to summarise facts, not present them all no matter how trivial they are. Please think about this: would a typical non-fan of Beyoncé who came across this article want to know that the single was at number twenty-seven in its fourth week on the Hot 100? Or that it was at number twenty-one on the chart the following week? See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues. If a single's chart run was particularly good or bad, then the text can be expanded to reflect that, but we should try to avoid turning the article into a marketing report/scorecard-like overview of the single's performance. Extraordinary Machine 17:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't belong here according to WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:SONG. &mdash ShadowHalo 10:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics[edit]

There is also controversy surrounding this song. It is speculated that the second verse is not sung by Beyonce, but by her Destiny's Child co-member Kelly Rowland.

That's an important part of the article. It doesn't say the second verse IS Kelly Rowland, but there are wide rumors on the internet and said by radio DJ's that point out the second verse is sung by Kelly. So, it's important to say this here, but that it's just alleged and not proven to be true.

There seriousls is no point in this piece of information. The song is sung by Beyonce herself. This rumour was something made up by Kelly Rowland fans to calm their bitterness about Beyonce having another number one. That is a fact. This statement makes the neutrality of the section disputed as it throws Beyonce in a negative light.

I actually like Beyonce a lot and was never a fan of Kelly, but the second verse sure sounds a lot like Kelly to me.

I'm sorry but IF that is Kelly, she doe not sing the entire verse Beyonce comes in "More patience you take might..." but it should be in the article as speculationsTommy22028 19:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediabase[edit]

Three songs passed 200 million on Mediabase before this one: "Yeah!" "We Belong Together" "Shake It Off" This is the fourth.

Shake It Off: On September 15, 2005, "Shake It Off" passed the 200 million audience impressions mark according to Mediabase. It was the second single to do this, the first being "We Belong Together". -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think another article on Wikipedia is really the best source for statistics like that. Especially a Mariah article where her fans are easily tempted to edit her article to make it seem like she was the first to achieve that benchmark. "Yeah!" definitely passed 200 million on Mediabase

By now it has, and so has Mario's "Let Me Love You" and probably many other songs. So I have removed the "It is the x song to do this". -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, there was never a time when "Yeah!" passed the 200 million audience impressions mark; "Let Me Love You", on the other hand, may have most definitely. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article's from "07/12/2005" .. by now I'm sure that many more songs have passed the 200 million mark, but there's no accurate way (that I know of) to monitor them -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 00:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is too, Irreplaceable most definitely did, I'll look it up and put it in, love this song Check on It, love Beyonce! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.77.233 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of official versions[edit]

I've moved the list of official versions here, pending the addition of reliable sources that can be used to establish the notability of any of them:

In addition to being referenced, this list needs to be brought into line with the Manual of Style and other relevant policy and guideline pages before it can be re-added. Extraordinary Machine 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

picture[edit]

Shouldn't the top picture be the U.S. cover instead of the non-U.S. cover? I mean, it looks kind of weird because the caption says "non-U.S. cover". Someone should make that caption more detailed, like "Chinese cover" or whatever. 68.62.23.157 11:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Check on It[edit]

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 Check on It'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 "nz":

  • From Beyoncé Knowles discography: "Discography Beyoncé". Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. Hung Medien. Retrieved 2009-07-10.
  • From If I Were a Boy: "September 13, 2009: New Zealand Gold Certification". Radioscope. Retrieved 2009-09-22.

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⚡ 14:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Future Expansion[edit]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About.com[edit]

It would be good if the citations to Bill Lamb, an unreliable source, could be replaced with other sources. Adabow (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Check on It. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Check on It. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Check on It. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Check on It. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immoral song[edit]

The.song says women should get with gangsters. That is evil. People who fancy evil men are evil. It is evil.to fancy evil men. It is selfish, cruel, weak minded, entitled, narssassitic and evil to fancy evil men. If you support evil you are evil. JOEYTHEVIMSANTEPOET (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the article? Talk pages on Wikipedia are for improving articles, not criticizing its content, or in this case, a single lyric. ｡ 🎀 𝒫𝓊𝓇𝓅𝓁𝑒𝓁𝒶𝓋𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝒹𝓃𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉𝓈 𝟣𝟩 🎀 ｡ (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Check_on_It&oldid=1220162269"