Talk:I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleI'll Be Lovin' U Long Time 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 13, 2011Good article nomineeListed

POP FIRST[edit]

As the other songs, this is a pop/R&B song, but this time with hip hop influences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.78.252 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop First[edit]

The song is more pop than R&B!

Real cover[edit]

http://www.rap-up.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/mc_lovin.jpg

--Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's watermarked, and not too different than the cover on the page right now (minus the "T.I."). It can wait until a clear cover surfaces. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featuring T.I or not?[edit]

The video on TV says "Mariah Carey ft. T.I" but on Wikipedia, it doesn't say that T.I isn't featured in this song, when he evidently is and even the Mariah Carey singles discography template and CD cover states that I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time is with T.I. So, should we put down that the song features him, or not?

Well, everythings pointing to the remix itself being the single, so i would say its safe to go with it. Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard doesn't credit T.I., so he shouldn't be on the page. However, considering the edit wars that have happened over it, I think it's best left alone until (if?) a single cover is released without T.I. SKS2K6 (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


the info under the chart section is biased an not appropriate. Interest is subjective, sounds like a madonna fan wrote that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.28.114 (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Safe to say that the T.I. version is the single version because thats the only thing they will play over here. Not sure about everywhere else. Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Migrate is a single? (i'm brazilian. My english is bad)

189.105.1.128 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charts[edit]

Please note that charts have to be verifiable and have reliable sources. The chart sources for both the Euro and French Airplay charts are from blogs and appear to have been user-created. Also, the source for the apparent Netherlands chart does not display this song at all. Please refrain from inserting charts that are most likely invalid. Thank you. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC) User:JuStar, I already mentioned this, but please do not insert fake charts and put official names on them. I already mentioned that the Euro and French chart sources you're using are not official, as they a) mention that they are created by a person, and b) are on blogs or user-created sites. Second, it's not on the Netherlands chart ANYWHERE in the link that you're giving; "Touch My Body" is. Third, the Estonia chart also appears to be invalid, as it appears on this Charles Pons' site. Even if it was legitimate, though, would a country with a population of around a million be notable enough to have charts included on pages? Wikipedia does not need to have every single chart statistic of every single Mariah Carey song; that can remain on fansites. Please read WP:CHARTS before adding additional charts. Thank you. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Will start soon.[reply]

  • Comment I have to step up here. Calvin, stop reviewing Mariah Carey articles. Your last 5-6 reviews were all related to MC and being a member of the same Wikiproject I cannot in good conscience consider them to be not biased reviews. And that shows, as basic issues in the articles regarding MOS are not being pointed out and leading to crappy reviews again. This is like 2010 all over. And Nathan, I would have expected better judgement from your side as well since I already notified that this was gonna happen. Calvin, you have to step down I'm afraid or this will be a long process through GAR and ArbCom. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see an issue. He has not done, pardon me, anything significant for the project, except nominate a under-prepared "HATEU" and now "Oh Santa!". I would understand it if I would review a Mariah article, but this isn't an issue IMO. Take a look at the recent passes. "Shake It Off", "Bye Bye" etc. All articles that certainly merit that green icon. If it bothers you that much, then fine, don't fuss.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the last reviews have MoS issues in them which is not what a Good Article should have. And there are undue additions going on starting from the EOM era, including bloating up sections. Calvin is still learning and I'm afraid he doesn't know catching MOS issues on a large scale. But as a nominator you always have the privilege to accept or reject reviews. You are much more experienced than him Nathan. As for your blabbery at Axl's page, where have I mentioned or blamed you for this? Its Calvin who unknowingly did this. I don't go into article comparisons between Wikiprojects. Do you not want good reviews for your work? I don't understand. If you are happy with crap-ass reviews then I don't have anything to say to you. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legolas, like Nathan said, I am barely involved with the Wikiproject, and I have no problem with pointing out mistakes to do with her articles, unlike some fans of hers, I know when to praise or critique her. Why are you only deciding to bring something like this up now? You had no complaints about the two Gaga GANs I reviewed which you nominated. All I am doing is helping with the backlog by reviewing singers articles who I like. Does this look like I am giving a "crap-ass" review? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, prose is just not the only thing we review here. We give equal importance to MOS, NFCC and policies on verifiability and undue-ness. The articles you reviewed within the last two days all fail this and by this time you should have learnt about them. Learn from it Calvin, rather than crib. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still, you had no complaints with Marry the Night or You and I. And how about the GAN for Touch My Body? There was only 3 points made for improvement there and they were prose. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I don't blame you. You are not aware of many policies and guidelines, that sometimes gets in your way and I understand if you feel angered or frustrated. But you can't do anything other than learn from these. As I said above, it is also a nominator's prerogative to accept or reject reviews too. As for my nominations that you reviewed, if you want I can drag them through GAR, and I guarantee you it will still come out same. I know what I talk about regarding content writing and article development. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legolas, you are basically telling Calvin that his reviews are not thorough and crappy because he is inexperienced. What I'd like to understand is why you are bringing this up to Mimi articles? Why not, as he said, Gaga or Beyonce articles. Or why not that Rihanna article he reviewed? Then why don't you tell Calvin to stop reviewing anything at all, if you are unsatisfied. You are being biased, and choosing to find crap over here instead of the Gaga, Rihanna and Beyonce articles he has reviewed. Oh please Avi, i know you for years, stop this nonsense, "4 Minutes (Madonna song)" contains such a bloated recording section its almost ridiculous. And many of the older album pages are pure history on her relationships with Niles etc. Any issues on "MoS" or "NFCC" can easily be solved for any of those articles, maybe 5 minutes time.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan and Legolas, please keep it peaceful and amicable. Please do not start fighting all over again. Please. Calvin, we all appreciate your efforts but you should really become familiar to certain guidelines and policies (i somehow agree with this point of Legolas). However, i strongly believe that the Mariah articles you reviewed are all good because Nathan has a very good knowledge of all the guidelines and policies. He also writes extremely well and has a good knowledge of formatting of references. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much Jivesh, I appreciate your words :) As I said, I understand his point, but then this must be enforced with all. That means no one that is from a Wikiproject can review any article under the artist, even if they are not active. I honestly think it has something more to do with people being unhappy that Mariah articles are getting reviewed so quickly, and that bothers others because they don't sit there for months (at least the last 6-7). I don't know, so Calvin, I guess just don't review Mariah articles anymore, and we will just keep the peace here. I hope we all walk out of here friends and satisfied.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Nathan is very good and experience at what he does, that's why his GAN reviews are near on empty because there is hardly anything to correct him because of how concise he is. Plus, if Nathan disagrees with me on something, he has no problem with telling me why he doesn't want to change something, that's why what is being bought is a load of BS. Anyway, no more further comments on this review page please. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Nathan, wait. Why can't Calvin review those articles if he did not contribute significantly to them? Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, my freind Jivesh, you hit the nail right on the head. Calvin, while being a great friend and help in reviews and Rihanna work, has not done much in the Mariah discography. He nominated "HATEU" once when he just started, so it failed. Thats all. So I personally don't know why he can't review Mariah articles. According to Legolas, who I question his motives, he cannot review the articles simple "because he is a member of the Mariah Wikiproject" which is complete bullshit. He's also a member of Wikiproject Gaga and has reviewed 2 of them, Pixelyoshi is part of the Mariah page and has reviewed two for me in the past. Its BS. The rules state that as long as the editor has NOT had anything to do with the actual article, then its okay. I guess the only real thing is, that Legolas thinks Calvin will be biased "because its Mariah" and automatically pass it. As I said, its saddening, but BS. You know what I call this (Judas review) and Talk:Born This Way (song)/GA1 (Born This Way review), also CRAPPY reviews. But you don't see me going and complaining and starting fights over it. There you go--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 15:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about everyone else but here is my opinion. To review an article you should not have helped significantly to it's creation. Yet you can still be part of the WikiProject. But I also understand where Legolas is going. Calvin has reviewed over 10 of your articles, in a way showing that he has a significant interest in the topic thus creating a slight bias. Though I don't discourage some reviews, 10 is pushing the boundaries. I admit Calvin has good reviews when in comes to grammar etc, he missed significant things like music video's stills that failed NFCC. As to Legolas' past articles (one of which I reviewed) significant problems weren't evident unlike some in yours Nathan. So all in all if Calvin you avoid reviewing some of Nathan's articles and Nathan you go back and fix a few problems in your article (that can be pointed out be another reviewer)we can all just go back to creating great articles in peace and avoid this argument. Sorry if this was totally out of the blue. I haven't edited in a while due to my crazy summer and probably don't have an place here.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BlackJack, you have reviewed quite a few of my articles, and have not found many issues. I ask, you think because the stills in "Bye Bye" don't meet rational, or two is excessive or replaceable that it is a big issue? I can add any other image in a second. Please, do take a look if you wish, but don't make it seem like the articles that are being passed are in tatters. I am now currently looking for someone else to take up the review.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I am being bias? If I was, I wouldn't be able to find anything wrong with them, and I have. If people want the backlog to increase, then that's fine. Instead of trying to bring the backlog down, I'll just add to it like everyone else. I actually enjoyed reviewing articles more than editing them, but I've been made to feel like I am shit reviewer, when I know I'm not, and I actually don't know if I want to continue reviewing them because of that. So, thanks. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't exactly the still for Bye Bye it was more for article's like Get your Number where the stills don't really contribute much to the understanding of the reader. That is what I considered a "significant problem" just because of how obvious it was, I never intended to imply your articles had many major problems just obvious ones that needed a quick change. Don't get me wrong I think your work is great! And Calvin I totally understand your intentions and don't want to discourage you to review articles. It's just that 10 is excessive from one particular person which in my opinion showed your really into helping him get GA's which may be a mindset that causes you to do less thorough reviews. If you would like to help with the backlog there are many other articles that Nathan has not contributed to that can be reviewed. And don't feel like your a bad reviewer, I must say I'm not that great either. If you want read up on some MoS and image policies so you know what to look for instead of just mostly grammar it would likely help your reviews a lot! =D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second review[edit]

Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk2me) 23:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Infobox
  • No source in article to validate it was released on a vinyl single
    • Fixed
  • No source in article to validate when it was recorded
    • Now yes
  • The composition says the song has pop, R&B, and soul influences and does not have hip-hop; remove hip-hop and add pop, R&B, and soul to genre
  • No source in article to verify length of both versions of the song (this can be included in "Formats and track listings" section)
  • Add source in article to validate the label the song came from
    • It says the executives at Island voted for which single to release
Lead
  • ...is derived from sampling Mark DeBarge's Stay With Me, he and Etterlene Jordan also share songwriting credits. – Add quotes around "Stay With Me"; replace "he" with "DeBarge"
  • "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time" was released as the album's third single on July 1, 2008, in the United States, Australasia and select European countries. – "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time" was released as the album's third single in the United States, Australasia and select European countries on July 1, 2008.
  • Many reviewers complimented its production, and clever interpolation... – Comma not needed
  • Throughout other countries where it found release... – Change phrase of "where it found release"
  • ...peaking at numbers forty-one, sixty-nine and eighty-four in New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. – Add "respectively" at end
  • She first performed the song live at the MTV Video Music Awards Japan, held on June 2, 2008. – "Held" not necessary
  • Similarly on July 31, 2008, she performed the song... – "Similarly" not needed
  • ...which Carey made a cameo appearance... – Wiki-link "cameo appearance"
Background
  • ...following her decline in 2001." – Quote not necessary at the end
Composition
  • According to WP:SAMPLE, the song needs to be less than 10% of the original recording and a quality of about 64kbps, making it less than 18.9 seconds
    • Well, it says no more than 10% or 30 seconds, so at 24 seconds, I kind of compromised. If its an issue, I can reduced it another 4 seconds or so
      • It actually says, "10% of the length of the original song up to a maximum of 30 seconds." Therefore, the clip should be less than 18.9 seconds about 64kbps quality. Rp0211 (talk2me)
  • ...then it wouldn't be offensive:"I don't... – Add space between colon and quote
Critical reception
  • Use quote box template to put quote in
    • I don't know how to do this. I copy and paste the formulas
  • Allmusic critic, Stephen Thomas Erlewine, chose the song... – Commas not needed
Commercial performance
  • ...and it has peaked at number thirty-six. – Add "since" between "has" and "peaked"
  • "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time" debuted at number 100 on the Billboard Hot 100 at number 100 in mid-July.[49] – second "at number 100" not needed; specify full date it charted
  • On the Pop 100 chart, reached number fifty.[51] – Fix prose
  • ...debuted at number eighty-four on the UK Singles Chart due to digital sales, since it never received a commercial release there. – The "Formats and track listings" section says it was released in the UK as a promo single
  • Put international charting info into a second paragraph
  • Start first paragraph with Billboard Hot 100, as it is the main chart for U.S. singles
Remix
  • Wiki-link "Riverside, California"
Music video
  • ...Carey flew to Hawaii for the three day music video shoot from June 8-10, 2008.[59] – Replace "the" with "a"
  • On July 7, 2008, it premiered on Total Request Live.[60] – "It later appeared on Total Request Live on July 7, 2008."
  • The music video image needs the source to say where it came from and not "My own work"
    • Well, thats the thing. I took the image myself from youtube, and cropped it and uploaded it etc. Its not from any website or magazine. So what should I put? YouTube?
      • Specify the YouTube link you found it at. The "source" parameter could say "From YouTube with copyrights to Island Def Jam" with YouTube acting as an external link. Rp0211 (talk2me)
Live performances
  • No issues
Formats and track listings
  • Specify song length for all songs in this section
Credits and personnel
  • No issues
Charts
  • No issues
References
  • Reference 4 – Wiki-link "BBC News" and "BBC"
  • Reference 10 – Wiki-link "Fox News" and "News Corporation"


Overall review[edit]

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put this article on hold. A combination of prose issues and citation of reliable sources where necessary are keeping this article from reaching good article status. I will give you the general seven days to fix these issues and/or discuss any of the issues you believe does not affect good article status until a consensus is reached. If you have any questions, or need help with something, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 (talk2me) 20:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done all. Only thing is the quote box thing. The link you gave me lists an article hat has a different kind of box than this one. I've copied this formula from other GA/FAs, so I don't think its wrong. Please, if you can, try to fix it, because I truly don't see an isse. Everything else has been addressed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and put in the quote box template. Because you have addressed all of the issues, I feel confident passing this article. Keep up the good work. Rp0211 (talk2me) 23:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time. 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) 16:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time. 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) 01:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time. 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) 14:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%27ll_Be_Lovin%27_U_Long_Time&oldid=1206652089"