Talk:My December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Certification[edit]

People keep editing the sales chart and saying that My December has been certified Gold in the U.S. - when I haven't seen any sources saying it has. It hasn't even cleared the 500k mark. Danielh8675 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications are based on shipments, not sales. 76.112.102.98 21:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Album Sales[edit]

Has My December sold 35,000 copies in Australia? It has been certified Gold, but does that mean it shipped 35,000 copies or that it sold 35,000 copies? Danielh8675 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means that it has shipped 35,000 copies. --JYi 02:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Album Sales[edit]

Why are there some sources saying that My December has sold 291,000 copies in the U.S., but others say it has sold 300,089? Which is correct? Danielh8675 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the source seems the most reliable. I haven't seen a source that says it has sold 300,089. --JYi 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this one. That one says 300,089. Danielh8675 04:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hits Daily Double doesn't use soundscan numbers like Billboard does. Judging from text from this link:
"TOP TEN (courtesy Hits Daily Double; the more authoritative Billboard data will be released soon)"
I would use the Billboard numbers for this article, since it is more "authoritative." --JYi 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thanks for clearing that up. Danielh8675 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

is sputnik a professional review site? im just not familiar with the site. after reading hte review it seems a little immature to be so professional. it may be, so someone correct me if im wrong. Danielh8675 01:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik is listed as non-professional at WP:ALBUM#Non-professional for non-staff reviews. I looked through a few random spots in this article's history but couldn't find the link to the review to see if it's a staff review, but if it sounds immature I would guess that it's not. --JYi 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many reviews that are negative seem to keep getting deleted. We need to keep it neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mixtapeguru (talk • contribs) 22:19, July 4, 2007.

I agree that it needs to be kept neutral, but you seem consistent on spamming a link to a site that you are affiliated with (which violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). Plus, I do not believe Famoso Magazine qualifies as a professional review site, judging by its age and website. --JYi 04:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

linkin park?[edit]

does anyone think she copied the name from the Linkin Park song?Fullmetalninja11 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)fullmetalninja11[reply]

"It's called my December because it's kinda of like wrapping up you know two years. It's like you're waiting for January to come so you can kind of start over." - KIIS FM with Ryan Seacrest. 4/13/07(FufuTofu 22:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think it's possible. What are the chances that it was a complete accident? It's not a common expression, and I'm assuming the person who named the album would have to be a major audiophile anyway. Smileman66 01:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly would of never been named My December if LP hadnt introduced that title, since it is not a common expression or term. But I'm sure Kelly only used it because she was able to find meaning and apply it to her life, not because it sounded cool. So yeah, she probably got the title from LP, but because it suited her situation.

could it just be a coincidence? Danielh8675 01:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I somehow see more resemblance between the album's "Haunted" with Evanescence's "Call Me When You're Sober".. Notice the chorus. 125.162.7.203 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Composer[edit]

Does anyone know who wrote this song?

I remember hearing somewhere Kelly wrote all the songs on the album(the lyrics). (FufuTofu 22:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I saw Access Hollywood and she was on there and said that she wrote all of the songs.
Co-wrote. 72.206.97.34
She is the most-contributing writer on every song of the album.

More Info[edit]

Okay, basically I don't know how to site the source or whatever, but I found something on EW that has some new information. Someone please read it and update 'My December' and 'Never Again'. It says 'Yeah' is a new song, and says one of the writers for Never Again. Thanks (FufuTofu 00:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Release Date[edit]

If her tour is going to start on July 7 with the Live Earth concert wouldn't that mean that her album would have to be released some time in June? I've never heard of an artist doing a tour and singing songs off of an album without the album actually being released.

I think it's almost definitely going to be June. There's what you said, and also that they usually release a single about a month before the CD. Although late May seems possible as well, it's been said to be summer a lot, so June is a very good educated guess. We just don't know for sure right now. 72.206.97.34

It is rumored to Be july or june 24...which is weird

Official Release Date?[edit]

Does anyone know where the official release date is actually posted on the page it says July 24, 2007 but where did that information come from.

http://www.hitsdailydouble.com is where my Kelly source...sourced. It requires a reg to access the site itself, so I don't have a link. Dirtysocks 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My December has NOT been scrapped[edit]

This is not true so please don't put it in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.219.29 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC). Ya that's way uncalled for. Why whould her label release a new single off of an album which is not going to be released?!?!? And why would she along with other sources be claiming it's going to be released in the summer when it's not?!?!?! And just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's ok to put in the article or that it's true. Again in response to clive davis's "scrapping of albums" I think it would be WAY to late to scrap the album, first of all there have already been photoshoots, and then there is the undenyable fact that a TOUR HAS ALREADY BEEN SCHEDULED!!!!! It would cost way too much money to cancel all the tour dates which have already been set up, but if clive davis wants to scrap the album that everyone has been waiting 3YEARS to hear, that thousands of people will be waiting to get, then by all means let him do it. Again Clive Davis "scrapping" My December is extremely unlikely. Finally my guess is that the album has already gone into production considering how popular Kelly Clarkson is and how many people will be buying the album, if in fact the album is to be released when everyone suspects that it is.[reply]

In response to... My December has NOT been scrapped[edit]

Clive Davis is known for scrapping albums very late into the process. In 2001, Arista/LaFace was HEAVILY promoting Usher's "The Wonderful World of U" / "All About U" and even released a first single ("Pop Ya Collar",) yet Clive still scrapped the album. He kept only 25% of the original tracks, created some new songs. All this work led to the incredibly great 8701.

Same thing happened to Monica's "All Eyes On Me." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.213.158.105 (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

LA Times[edit]

Can someone add more stuff from that story in "My December" and also in "Kelly Clarkson". It describes a lot more. I basically suck at writing.. so can someone do it? Thanks. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-ca-clarkson6may06142419,1,994689.story?coll=la-entnews-music&ctrack=3&cset=true (FufuTofu 18:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Do we really need the conflict with record label in the MD album article?[edit]

It doesn't have much to do with the album, it's all been put in the past and the album's being released now. Does it matter and more importantly should it be in the article?

I don't see how you can say it doesn't have much to do with the album when the conflict was about the album. It's not like it's a random story about a fight Kelly had with her label about, say, her tour or something. It was about the album, how the album was almost scrapped, and the fight to get the album released. I think it's completely relevant and vote it stay.

Fair use rationale for Image:Kelly Clarkosn - My December Cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Kelly Clarkosn - My December Cover.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 Wikipedia articles 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 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downloads[edit]

I will personally be deleting any links to download parts of Kelly Clarkson's album, unless those links lead directly to legal releases. Already we've had a couple of edits, linking to blogs with Sober and Haunted downloads. Let's try to respect Kelly and just buy her album.

-and I (different person) am going to delete any mention of the leaked album or other leaked songs in the article. I don't think it's necessary for an encyclopedia article to note everytime a bit of an album is leaked.

I think the fact the album was leaked a long time before it's release is important, but maybe it's better to add it after the release of the album. Lizrael 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything leaks. What makes a leak notable is if the album is pushed up because of it or if the artists release some kind of statement about it. (Neither of which has happened with this album) -- JYi 17:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Everything does not actually leak. Ciara's latest cd was shipped to the media for reviews on casette tapes to avoid leaks, and it did not leak ahead of release. Never Again, the cd version, didn't leak either until it had debuted on radio. The leak date is interesting and notable.

Ciara's The Evolution did leak - rip date: 30-Nov-2006, street date: 05-Dec-2006. Besides, finding one or two albums does not prove anything. I'll change my statement from "everything leaks" to "almost everything leaks." JYi 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Mr. Attitude, in tons of articles the leaked dates are noted, and that's why I found it fit to add it to the article. Seriously, it's not even a big deal. But go look up some other cd pages. A lot of them have "the album leaked 2 weeks before release," etc.

add an album position chart.[edit]

from presales, its already #5 from iTunes.

actually it reached #2

conflict with record label getting off topic[edit]

I removed the part about her not wanting to sing Never Again on AI, and her firing her manager. The manager thing might be relevant, but the NA on AI doesn't really involve her album, and more involves promoting NA as a single, and her fighting with her managers more. This section was getting to large and that incident isn't exactly on topic of the problem with the ALBUM, it was more the problem with her vs. clive. So, if anything, the NA on AI should go on NA's page, but it doesn't belong in the conflict about the album with label section. [06:52, 14 June 2007 72.89.243.124]

I respectfully disagree and I've restored what you deleted. It makes more sense to put everything surrounding the conflict in one place rather than have it spread out. The problems with Davis overall, with the first single and its promotion, etc. are all directly related to, and an outgrowth of, her having made what Davis and the record company view as an album with limited commercial appeal. So if we're describing the battle between Clarkson and the powers that be, this is the place to describe it. Wasted Time R 11:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
alright, if others feel with reason it belongs there, instead of some random Kelly fan just coming and copying and pasting something without Wiki knowledge, then i guess it should remain.

Fox News Article[edit]

I don't get why that paragraph on the Fox News article has to be there. It's obviously B.S. since the Blender and Slant magazine had almost all positive things to say, while that article had like none. If we can't delete can we at least make it smaller since I don't see much relevance to it. Kelly: ""My friend sent me this thing as a joke written by some person who hasn't even heard the album, saying 'Kelly Clarkson is the new Courtney Love'," says Clarkson, laughing.

"The album is nothing like Courtney Love -- I like Courtney Love, but that's major alternative rock. " ( http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21906731-5006016,00.html ) So, can we delete it or at least make it smaller? (FufuTofu 17:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Even though that article "had like none" positive things to say, it is just as valid a critical opinion as any other article or review. This is an encyclopedia page, not a Kelly Clarkson fan page. Get the difference? Wasted Time R 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get what I'm saying. The Blender and Slant - professional reviews - are basically complete opposite then the Fox article. I don't know about you, but that sorta tells me something about the Fox article. Yes, it's still a "critical opinion", but so is this one: ( http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21906731-5006016,00.html ) This, unlike the Fox article, actually sounds like the writer listened to the music.

Some excerpts from the Fox writer's follow-up: "I downloaded it quickly last Friday, and have been listening to it ever since — not necessarily because it's so good, but to evaluate its inherent oddness."

"Clarkson obviously was in a bad relationship with an abusive alcoholic. We get it; it's all over the album, from "Sober" to "Chivas.""

"Clarkson doesn't have a grasp of metaphor."

"In "Yeah," which is saved by the band, she warbles: "I know where I've loved somebody more than what you'll give to me." It's clear she's mad, bitter, and resentful."

( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,283752,00.html )

Hopefully, since you're in this discussion, you know some stuff about My December, and I don't have to explain to you what those quotes mean. Again, I think we should remove/shorten the Fox News paragraph. We can easily replace it with reviews that make sense. Here's two from MTV, that actually make sense. ( http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1562780/20070618/clarkson_kelly.jhtml# ) ( http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1562808&vid=157600 ) (FufuTofu 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Fox guy has listened to the music, and his opinion makes sense; he just doesn't think Clarkson and her cohorts are strong enough songwriters to carry a whole album. Others may disagree. You and the other fanboys and fangirls out there don't seem to be able to accept a negative view of your Kelly. Fine, if it's keeping you awake at night, pull it out of the article. Anyone who comes to Wikipedia looking for objectivity on current pop stars is a fool to begin with. Wasted Time R 21:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree completely. One opinion shouldn't have to be represented in the article. If there is a lot of reaction which is highly negative then this can be mentioned. I think I'm going to edit it a bit. I'm kind of new at this, so if I have screwed up, let me know. Thanks

I do not have a problem with negativity in the article. I do have a problem with you accusing me of things. I'm going to remove the Fox paragraph, if anyone else has a problem with this, feel free to discuss.(FufuTofu 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wasted Time is completely right. Just because someone gives negative opinions of an album that you don't agree with, doesn't mean its "B.S." and should be deleted, and if you are deleting it you obviously do have a problem with it, otherwise you would be leaving it in. This is wikipedia, not a place for biased opinions. If no one had given negative opinions of the album, then we wouldn't have any negative comments listed. But there have been negative reactions, and therefore they need to be here, which is why I'm adding it back, yet again.

WIKI-GUY-16 12:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't it's negative, it should be removed. Obviously me trying to explain why it should be removed though isn't getting through to anyone. So fine.(FufuTofu 01:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi again. Ummmm, yes I understand what you mean. I guess it just doesn't seem right that only the Fox article is included. If you take some quotations from the Time Out London review it may be better, just to show more than one source.

I don't have a problem with including an unfavorable review. But the line, "An unnamed source predicted the album would have strong sales in its first few weeks, but fall quickly afterwards" seems excessive. Why should the "prediction" of some random, unnamed source be considered relevent? Rosiekins 05:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is obviously someone linked to the record company side of this dispute, otherwise they wouldn't have minded being named. We'll know soon enough if the person was right or not, and the article can reflect this. Wasted Time R 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Watt's contribution[edit]

Has there been any news since the initial Pitchfork story? I think it's notable, if it's still true. 67.121.208.213 07:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely true and is mentioned in several reviews of the album. I think it should be mentioned in the article, as it is an interesting anecdote. DFS (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre?[edit]

While I haven't listened to the album yet, I don't see how any of her previous work could be classified as "rock". Unless she's had a major change in musical style (which I highly doubt) I would recommend that the genre info be changed. DirtySocks85 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, artists do change styles or even genres. You are correct that her previous work could not be classified as "rock" but this album is dramatically different, to the point of alienating some of her previous fan base (hence the fight and some of the controversy on the album). Artists do grow and change styles: for example, much to my annoyance, a lot of my previous favourite artists have moved to country music like Jewel Kilcher and Michelle Branch. Jessica Simpson going country is another highly publicized example of an artist changing genres. I am sure there are more and even better examples.
However, Pop is a sort of "catch-all" description to handle some of the variances, so some might still combine two genres as a descriptor. But really, it is not conventional Pop, which might be why it wasn't as commercially successful as previous albums. I wouldn't argue Pop being included as a genre (for its catch-all purposes) but it just wouldn't be accurate alone. --Blondtraillite (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it says rock on itunes as the genre for the album

However, when you upload the physical CD onto your computer, it is listed as Pop music. I think that Kelly has stated it is pop rock, so I think that genre is fitting. Danielh8675 01:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Position Citations[edit]

Whoever is deleting the [citation needed] off the sales chart should recognize the fact that all proper Wiki articles have citations for the chart figures (including positions and sales). Otherwise those figures will have to be deleted. See: Back to Basics, Loose, Futuresex/lovesounds as examples (3 of MANY)...Vikramsidhu 17:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian first-week sales[edit]

According to the "Hit" music section from the Herald Sun, - which has access to the official sales data from ARIA (that is not published online) - while MD has shipped 35,000 copies, only 10,536 copies were actually sold. The #1 album (Michael Buble) sold a total of 16,262 copies. There isn't an online link as it is published in the paper only. Peter2012 June 6,2007.

Sony BMG?[edit]

Did anyone else notice on the back cover of the album, the logo is not that of Sony BMG but that of BMG. Maybe it's just the iTunes representation of it, but its not just a rendering error anyway (if the Sony was to be inserted there would be no room). Is there a reason for this, or is it simply a mistake? - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AUSTRALIAN CERTIFICATIONS & SALES I am sick to death of the person who keeps putting that My December has gone platinum. It hasn't it is still gold which means 35,000 copies have been shipped to Australian stores, this does not mean 35,000 copies have been sold and when it is certified platinum that means 70,000 copies have been shipped. Sales are no where near 80,000 that was out. Sales for the album would be around 20-30,000 copies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.121.221 (talk) 06:41, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

LP redirect?[edit]

Could somebody put in something along the lines of "For the Linkin Park song, see In The End: Live and Rare"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihitterdal (talk • contribs) 21:10, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for My December's RIAA certification[edit]

I keep noticing the same one or two people changing My December's RIAA certification without citing a source. I am trying to find a consensus for the CD's RIAA Certification. According to RIAA's website My December is not certified. I cannot find anything through Google that says otherwise beside Wikipedia and fan message boards without any article/web page cited. Aspects 16:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC) (edit forgot to sign)[reply]

You're right...it has NOT been certified at all. And I doubt her label will be spending money on a certification any time soon... Vikramsidhu 16:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for RIAA certifications and record sales[edit]

Please provide a source before changing any RIAA certification or changing record sales drastically. Thank you, Aspects 15:35, 1 December 2007 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My December (album) → My December — The article was at My December and was yesterday moved to My December (album) with the edit summary of "My December needs disambiguation page," but there is only one article with the title "My December", so the dab page is not necessary. The tour article is titled more than just "My December" and the song article is a redirect with only one edit in its history and would not pass WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib)
  • Support per nom. Mhiji (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was just about to bring this up actually. Per what everyone else said. Unsure to why someone thought this needed to be moved. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (talk · contribs) 01:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It would appear the user who moved the article will do anything to promote the band Linkin Park and has been consistently moving pages related to this band. Agree with all the points made above. Tomayres (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on My December. 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) 21:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on My December. 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) 18:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"How I Feel (song by Kelly Clarkson" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect How I Feel (song by Kelly Clarkson and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#How I Feel (song by Kelly Clarkson until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:My_December&oldid=1202604028"