Talk:4 Minutes (Madonna song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 4 Minutes (Madonna song) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic star 4 Minutes (Madonna song) is part of the Hard Candy (Madonna album) 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Songs (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Electronic music (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Madonna (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Madonna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Madonna (entertainer) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Justin Timberlake (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Justin Timberlake, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Justin Timberlake on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Africa / Malawi (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Malawi (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Hip hop (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

What is it about?[edit]

There's an awful lot on this article about how successful Madonna is, how successful Timberlake is. How many albums they've both sold. How many copies this song has sold. How the video was made etc. But NOTHING on what the song is supposed to be about. A bit strange for a piece of art, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.51.254 (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, it needs to be remedied. But the reason it stands the way it does is that the content of the song is not, in general, considered "notable", or at least not as notable as are such benchmarks as sales, and other elements markedly divorced from art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.5.24 (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Music Video[edit]

You can watch the music video at http://vtornado.com/media/121/Madonna_4_Minutes_Official_Video/[1]

Does the description in the Music Video section fall into the original research category? There doesn't seem to be any references in the descriptive paragraph.Reqluce (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

INCORRECT LYRIC[edit]

People keep indicated that they have only got 4 minutes to "save the world" rather it's to "say the word". The latter makes more sense with the remainder of the lyrics and the video. Correction is needed in the SONG SECTION to reflect...

The song's lyrics and video suggests that both protagonists have got no more than four minutes to 'save the world', yet, the length of the song is not four minutes, but rather four minutes and four seconds.[6]

As the 'save the world' should read 'say the word'. Thanks.

--Jznoy (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


The length of the song is irrelevant to the songs title especially since the difference is just 4 seconds.

I addition, you are incorrect about the incorrect lyrics. I have listened closely to this song multiple times and have have checked numerous different sources that contain the lyrics. In each case, the main line is, "We only got 4 minutes to Save the World"

Here is the list of sites that show the correct lyrics: http://www.metrolyrics.com/4-minutes-to-save-the-world-lyrics-madonna.html [2]
http://www.mp3indirbedava.com/madonna-4-minutes-lyrics-and-video-music/2008/ [3]
http://www.justsomelyrics.com/1932654/Madonna-4-Minutes-Lyrics [4]
http://allaboutmadonna.com/2008/03/madonna-4-minutes-lyrics.php [5]
http://www.elyricsworld.com/4_minutes_lyrics_madonna.html [6]

They all show "We only got 4 minutes to Save the World" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.253.186.24 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tick-tock Website[edit]

I just found it. Put it into the video section but I'm not sure.

www.tick-tock.tv--Cliff (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

April[edit]

4 MINUTES MUSIC VIDEO IS NOW PREMIERING IN APRIL NOT MARCH ACCORDING TO MADONNAS CAMPS

does anyone know when the video is out???

The video is expected to premiere on iTunes on the 4th April. Check out the homepage for an advert is under Madonna Pre-order voodoorocksteady —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voodoorocksteady (talkcontribs) 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

AAAAAHHHHH!!![edit]

It's NOT TIMBERLAND, IT'S TIMBALAND!!.....Notice the 'A'??

I HATE YOU LIMEWIRE!, if idiots actually bought songs, then there wouldn't be this problem.--XCheese360 (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's his fault for not knowing how to spell. Yeah, I said it, Ebonics is not a real language, so sue me "Gran diddy P" or "Funkmasta Flex". 64.230.5.8 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing[edit]

If the doomsday clock is at five minutes, then the song obviously isn't about the doomsday clock.--XCheese360 (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Danja[edit]

ASCAP ref says that Danja is a writer of the song, but not sure that there is a ref for saying he also co-produced the song. Anyone know?? JKW111 (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also the album page says Timberlake is not a producer of this song yet this page clearly states he is (at the top) Dollvalley (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Song title[edit]

Recent reports have it published as 4 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigthe3rd (talkcontribs) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Song release date[edit]

Officila digital release of this song is March 24th, but i found that www.7digital.com is about to release Album version of "4 Minutes" in March 18th. See this link for details. The quastion is, shouldn't we digital release date change from 24th to 18th? --Digital1 (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with that, it premiered in Australia today, on the Melbourne radio station, FOX FM this morning and i heard it :). --23:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Release date[edit]

Yes, iTunes are also releasing it on 18th March 2008.

Pabs1903 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Chart Positions[edit]

The song isn't on any charts such as Pop 100 or Hot 100 yet so why is it listed with a blank??? iTunes UK and Dutch Downloads are constantly changing, i don't see them as valid sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmkimberley (talkcontribs) 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific iTunes Stores and other component charts should not be included per WP:CHARTS anyway. Placing anything here with a dash is useless, not to mention completely speculative and going against WP:CRYSTAL. You were correct to remove the whole section. - eo (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is exciting news! 4 Minutes will debut at #68! [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.25.143 (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think someone should change the part where it says that the song is #2 on i-tunes, being held back by the "unbeatable" Mariah Carey song. It just sounds stupid, and it sounds like a Mariah Carey fan wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.169 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


i think it's better to write the references behind the charts (Iris Singles Charts....) and not behind the charts- positions.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.228.208 (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Chart News[edit]

This single debuted at #1 in France and Italy today. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.18.255 (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Debuted at #1 in Norway too [9] 81.191.4.66 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Chart Mistakes[edit]

IMPORTANT

The chart peaks positions are wrong.

Some of the Billboard links not working, need registration.

And why a recent Madonna single is BLOCKED for all the people??

Charts[edit]

It's totally fake for exemple France on Billboard Charts. And Norway and others too !

Why are there so many examples of the song's progress on iTunes? That is only one retailer. it should be axed.Reqluce (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Something about iTunes[edit]

I went to iTunes to get the song, and it says that Timbaland is featured on it. Does anybody know if he is officially featured or if it is a mistake on iTunes part? Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually it does feature Timbaland at the start of the song, but it is taken out of the song for the radio edit. But in the album version it has Timbaland in it at the start, sorta like an interlude. --BatterWow (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do here is to go by what is on the single cover. It's kinda like "SexyBack" - to be correct it is a solo song by Justin Timberlake, whereas "Promiscuous" specifically credits it as "Nelly Furtado featuring Timbaland". The problem I have is that iTunes is just one specific retailer... it's best to go with what is on the song sleeve and how it is listed on music charts. If the local record store at the mall has it categorized as "featuring Timbaland", that doesn't mean they are right. - eo (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm just saying. Every site that I went to so far credits Timbaland as featured. You have to take into consideration that lots of people that are featured aren't on the cover art. Missy Elliott's "Lose Control" is one of them. Ciara and Fatman Scoop are featured in the song, and the cover doesn't have them down. Baby Bash's "Suga Suga" featured Frankie J., but is he mentioned? No. Neither is Tiffany Villarreal/Perla Cruz & Russell Lee on his other song "Short Doowap". D.O.E. is featured on "The Way I Are", but the cover art only includes Keri Hilson. Rick Ross is featured on Flo-Rida's "Birthday" and he isn't featured on the cover art. And if you noticed, the most important part is THIS cover. It says "Madonna & Justin", but it isn't a duet. You see where I'm going? Lots of cover art doesn't have the people that are featured, but they are still featured..... Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Most sites I've seen list it as Madonna featuring Justin Timberlake, including Billboard. Listing of credits should be as released by the record company. "You're So Vain" is a Carly Simon song, not Carly Simon featuring Mick Jagger; "Money for Nothing" is a Dire Straits song, not Dire Straits featuring Sting - even though both of these artists obviously appear on these songs. It goes by official credit. On another point, even if's not a duet, yet billed with an &, that how it should be listed.--Wolfer68 (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Record companies and artist management negotiate for artist crediting on singles, which is exactly why Timbaland is not featured here, nor on "SexyBack" and why, for example, D.O.E. was not listed on "The Way I Are", etc., etc. It is because of these negotiations that the covers do not have the extra names listed and why the music charts — in the U.S. and elsewhere — abide by those decisions. - eo (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Those are all good reasons to have him not say he's featured, but another reason why I think he should stay on is that most people identify the song with Timbaland in it. I'm not trying to be bitch or even sound like a jerk, but the song, on most sites, and even on iTunes has him as a featured artist. It is the same thing with "AYO Technology". Timbaland is no where to be featured on the cover, but there is still credit given to him. Also, back to the Billboard, that reasoning to keep him off the credits is flawed. "Break It Off" was listed as a duet between Sean Paul & Rihanna, but we have it listed as featuring. Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you're being a bitch. Flawed or not, all the "featuring" stuff has to do with contractual stuff with record companies. "4 Minutes" has Timbaland all over it as he is producer, but ultimately I don't believe he should be shown here. Perhaps we can get a consensus on it? I know this was explained recently in a Billboard article, I'll try to at least find a link to that, maybe it will clear up some of the confusion. - eo (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did find this, which is basically the same idea as what I commented above. I'll keep looking for some more, if needed. - eo (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be a better idea to get a consensus on this subject. I know some people at my school say he's not featured, but others say he is. Its really confusing.... Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Is using other sites allowed? I have a friend that wants to help with this, but because we share the same IP address (we live in a dorm), I'm not sure it would be allowed? Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "using other sites"? I am pretty sure that two people using the same computer or IP is ok as long as you have separate accounts and there isn't any monkey business or vandalism going on - you two can't possibly be the only two people on Wikipedia who share a computer or IP address. - eo (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean asking other people to come and help us decide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.244.223 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm the friend she was talking about and in my opinion, Tim SHOULD be featured on the credits. I don't know if you agree with that but thats the way I think it should go down. He's featured on iTunes, and for those of you that said that he's not featured on the Billboards, he wasn't featured on the Billboards for "AYO Technology", yet we still have him credited there. My vote goes to him being featured, and I have been gathering people to give an opinion and for the record, I have one person that also says should be featured, bringing the count up to 3 people. Here is where she agave me the information: [10]

That is what we meant by outside websites. That makes 3 people so far. Twilight Moonbird (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I reckon that when the album comes out we should look at the back of the album to see whether it says featuring Timbaland and Justin timberlake or just if it just says featuring Justin Timberlake. Until then I think it should just say featuring Justin Timberlake and Timbaland. --BatterWow (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Good, because I know for sure that SexyBack features Timbo.... The album says it. Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the single cover says "Madonna & Justin (Timberlake)". Am I crazy? --189.31.38.32 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The cover here says "Madonna and Justin" and "SexyBack"'s cover simply lists Justin Timberlake. This is the same way that Billboard and other charts list the songs. Using "AYO Technology" isn't a good example, as obviously that should be corrected too. Please also note that this is not a majority vote - please read WP:Consensus - it is looked upon as bad form to solicit opinions from outside areas, for example a forum or message board, to get people to come here specifically to post comments when they are not regular Wikipedians. Just so you know. - eo (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still right though. Wait til the album's liner notes are released. Charmed36 (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

iTunes mislabels lots of things. Billboard is accurated. Charmed36 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If I may say, its not only iTunes. "AYO Technology" listed it as "featuring "Justin Timberlake & Timbaland" on one of the charts, so did "The Way I Are" on one of the charts. What else did iTunes mislabel? If that was the only song then it can't be a mislabel. Oh, and your going to love this. Over here, one of the music video channels labeled it as a "Madonna featuring Justin Timberlake & Timbaland". Not to mention that EVERY site that has something about the song also labels it as "featuring Justin Timberlake & Timbaland". Are you saying that the MAJORITY of people have it mislabeled? If you are, then that is simply foolish. He is even in the music video for God's sakes. And we had it labeled that he was featured before the cover came? What happened to that? Wait until the CD comes out and see if it has him listed. Billboard can mislabel things also. Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok know-it-all. Charmed36 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a know-it-all. I just think that it isn't logical to say that iTunes mislabeled it when 100 other sites credit him. Same with SexyBack and The Way I Are. I even have the JT's album and it says featuring Timbaland.... Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Australian iTunes only lists "4 Minutes (featuring Justin Timberlake)", so i think iTunes is not a good source. Let's wait and see what the actual cd says. Also note that on ASCAP site, only Madonna and Justin are listed as performers - ASCAP JKW111 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I for one would consider ASCAP a far more reliable source than iTunes. - eo (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this may sorta be like "My Love". Is any verse from Timbaland featured in the radio version? 72.87.74.243 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if Timbaland did have a full verse in the song, the issue is whether he is credited as an artist on the song. There are a lot of songs that feature vocalists who are uncredited. If this is listed in ASCAP database without Timbaland, I'm really thinking his name needs to be taken off the artist credit here. - eo (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well. What about radio stations? One of them over here credits them? Aren't they a reliable source? Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point now. A radio station or a DJ can say whatever they want when playing the song. We are talking about the way a song is officially credited by the record company, the artists, the artists' management and legal representatives. National charts adhere to how these contractual negotiations are worked out and display the credits accordingly (such as Billboard or the UK Singles Chart). This is an encyclopedia and that is how we should display the credits here. I've noticed you keep inserting Timbaland into a lot of different song articles, such as "SexyBack", "Cry Me a River", "Pony", "Try Again" and "Are You That Somebody". These songs were produced by Timbaland but they did not credit him as a "featured" artist. - eo (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this will need to change. If you follow the links in the article attached to the official charts for various countries, you will find that in Canada, Finland, Poland, New Zealand, Billboard and United World Chart, all only mention Madonna and Justin, no Timbaland. On the official Australian ARIA chart, which for a number of other songs always mentions featured artists, only lists Madonna as the artist for the song. Even though Warner are pushing Timbaland in promotions of the song, including samples on madonna.com, I think we can establish that he is not specifically listed in the official song title reference. Unless something more conclusive, we should adjust the current info. JKW111 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Responding to my own question - there is a photo of the back cover of the album floating around that lists the songs, and for 4 minutes it says featuring justin timberlake and Timbaland. This image might not be genuine, but we will hopefully know soon enough. JKW111 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Official tracklist from Warner here JKW111 (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Cover of the album here. It says "4 MINUTES (FEATURING JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE AND TIMBALAND). --TRyudo (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, excluding the front cover, the single's liner note does have Timbaland name as featured artist. Bluesatellite (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Tick Tock TV[edit]

About that. Tick Tock TV It's very interesting because it's like counting down to something. I've been watching and I am gonna keep an eye out on it. I have a feeling when i reaches 4 o'clock. Somethings gonna happen. So, i'll keep an eye out. --BatterWow (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not counting down to anything, it lists the present time in real-time. PatrickJ83 (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized that a while ago. Lol --BatterWow (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Record on Nielson[edit]

It should be mentioned that this is the first time since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking digital sales in 2003 that two titles, this and Mariah Carey's "Touch My Body", debut simultaneously on Hot Digital Songs with more than 200,000 downloads each. The week also marks the best single-week digital tally in either artist's career. It's an awesome achievement for both artists.---¤÷(`[¤*M*¤]´)÷¤- 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference to milliseconds[edit]

This part isn't technically right: "The music video begins with Timbaland rapping his opening lines, in front of a screen showing exactly four minutes in the format of minutes:seconds:milliseconds." It's definitely not milliseconds. A millisecond is a thousandth of a second, and so would need three digits to display, not the two shown in the video. It's either hundredths of a second - which could be verified if anyone's able to spot '60' or higher in that part of the clock ;-) - or it's the sexagemisimal division of seconds and so wouldn't go higher than '59'. I'm sure there are plenty of trivia fans who can freeze-frame the video to find out :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.94.247 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Formats[edit]

What is this "babypak" cd single format that is listed? Is it maybe the simple card slip case?Dollvalley (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

international Billboard Links[edit]

Your international billboard links, in the Chart section, aren't official. Austria, Belgium, France... those lists are wrong. Every country has its own single chart. For example; the real Ireland position is 4, not 3. http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp

23 number 1s[edit]

According to this article the single has already collected 23 number 1s worldwide and it's not out yet?

Ok, ok...[edit]

I'm confused. This black crystal...thingy is either

  1. Destroying the world
  2. Turning stuff transparent.

Which one is it?--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 20:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Destroying the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.77.111 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Iam not sure if it destroys the world, as everyone in it, doesn't seem to be aware of this black-crystal thingy. Also video shows interaction with it where objects, also humans, are partialy transparent, but still alive and (despite of loosing half of their face) concious. I'm very interested in the subject, and end up here, but still I don't find any explanation for it. Of course video becomes "crypto message" for all 2012 loonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.223.4 (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How is this song considered "Electro pop" ?[edit]

Someone offer an explanation, else I am going to remove that from the genre description. —The Real One Returns (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics[edit]

I don't think we really need the lyrics do we???! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.163.150 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Alt text for artwork[edit]

I've been thinking about the current alt text for this single's artwork. The text currently begins as follows:

"A blond woman sitting beside a young man in front of a white background."

My concern is that this could confuse a visually impaired person into thinking that the artwork featured two generic nameless models, rather than Madonna and Timberlake themselves. My suggestion is that the alt text instead should begin something like:

"Madonna sitting beside Justin Timberlake in front of a white background."

What are people's thoughts? (This is something that's true of the alt text for all the articles on Madonna singles, but, since this one is featured, I thought that I may as well bring it up here.) A Thousand Doors (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ALT, description should be ambiguous, meaning don't say that Madonna and Timberlake is wearing so and so and doing so and so, but keep it in the way presented so that a visually impaired person, who doesnot know how Madonna and Timberlake looks, can have a visual description, and not come into a false originality. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't see where it says in WP:ALT that the description should be ambiguous. I'm looking at the examples, and I'm thinking that surely the alt text should follow the same sort of pattern as that for the photo of Tony Blair and George W. Bush, i.e. the two people need to be identified. A Thousand Doors (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Get Smart[edit]

What about a section mentioning that it was played during the credits of the Get Smart film? ~ Wikipedian19265478 (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Vocal Range[edit]

Bb5 is far from the highest note produced in the song, neither go anywhere near that high. I looked at the source and there doesn't seem to be one, just a dead link. So that is unreliable. calvin999 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because the source is dead it does not mean that it is "unreliable" by default. It has to be replaced. Also Calvin, could you stop doing this in all talkpages? You were told that if you have musical experience is OK, but not for Wikipedia. ۞ Tbhotch & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Partial source audit[edit]

Given ongoing concerns about use of sources by User:Legolas2186, who nominated this article for FA status, I have started spot-checking sources for this article.

I have discovered a high rate of problems within the first 5 refs, mostly failed verification or close paraphrasing. Much of the Recording section is plagiarized.

Ref 2(a), fails verification:

  • Article text: "'4 Minutes' is a collaboration between Madonna, Justin Timberlake and Timbaland. It was written and produced by all three of them, along with Nate 'Danja' Hills."
  • Source text: Does not mention "4 Minutes" by name at all, only mentions "the single", so unclear which song the interview is about. Source does not mention Nate Hills at all.

Ref 3(b), fails verification:

  • Article text: "It incorporates the bass effect of a marching band, a clanging beat and instrumentation from a brass that is played in a high riff."
  • Source text: Says the brass plays a "scale-like riff"; unsure where "high riff" comes from.

Ref 3(f), fails verification:

  • Article text: "... while comparing Timberlake's vocals with that of Michael Jackson."
  • Source text: Only says Timberlake is "doing his best Michael Jackson impression"; a misrepresentation of the source.

Ref 3(h), fails verification:

  • Article text: "Japanese hip hop dancing duo Hamutsun Serve also made an appearance in the video."
  • Source text: Does not mention Hamutsun Serve.

Ref 4(a), close paraphrasing:

  • Article text: "... was not present for the first set of recording sessions because he was working on another project, but arrived for the second set of sessions."
  • Source text: "'I wasn't there for the first set of sessions for Madonna's album,' says Demo, 'because I was working on another project, but I was lucky enough to go in for the second set of sessions.'"

Ref 4(b), close paraphrasing:

  • Article text: "He recorded the rest, and also did some programming, particularly in the intro and the end."
  • Source text: "'I recorded the rest, and I also did some programming, particularly in the intro and the end.'"

Ref 4(g), close paraphrasing:

  • Article text: "He then ran everything through the SSL, while checking for the EQ, compression and panning."
  • Source text: "'I then ran everything through the SSL, on which I did EQ, compression and panning.'"

Major issue here: The entire Recording section is sourced to Tingen article, and the quite a lot of it is directly copied without proper attribution as a quotation. Entire interview sections were lifted from the source text and "I" was changed to "he", etc. Very close paraphrasing.

Ref 5(b), close paraphrasing:

  • Article text: "... wore a cream colored corset, glistening black boots and styled her hair in platinum blond waves while Timberlake wore mainly denims and had a scarf wrapped around his neck."
  • Source text: "... sporting a cream corset, glistening black boots and her trademark platinum-blond locks. Justin Timberlake, wearing a largely denim outfit and a scarf wrapped around his neck ..."

Only made it through ref 5 in an hour of reading/searching. --Laser brain (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this spot check. It looks to be an uphill battle. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. I can replace the source 2(a) with a Hard Candy' source, I have the album. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Tbhotch, "uphill battle" is an idiom meaning that we have a lot of work to do, and it will be difficult work. It is true. You seem intent on personalizing this problem due to your friendship or feeling for Legolas, which is not appropriate. No one is attacking the editor. We have identified very real problems with a significant cross-section of his contributions, and they need to be fixed. If you can identify a reliable, secondary source that can replace 2(a), and one may already be available in the other refs, please replace it. Please do not replace it with a primary source (the album). --Laser brain (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" I see no reason to exclude the most reliable source. And yes, this is personal, what are you going to do block me? Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I put an Alfred Publishing URL in the list for 2a. The primary source is fine in this case because no analysis is being put forward. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Laserbrain, thanks for taking the lead on this. Is there anyone here who is interested in working on the article to make sure that all of the sources cover all of the proper information? If not, this article needs to go up for FAR. I can do the paperwork of a FAR, but just wanted to make sure there wasn't anyone out there that is planning to work this article up to featured quality. Tbhotch, I agree with Laserbrain - this is nothing personal. It's an attempt to make sure that articles which have the bronze star actually meet the criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You know, it would be clear to future editors what we were doing here if we make this into a formal FAR. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Dana, I've seen many "bronze star articles" that don't meet the featured criteria. You came here only because Binks is reviewing Legolas's articles, not because you are interested in keep them featured. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I wish to add links to the original discussion and the workpage:
Ongoing work on other articles should be brought to the second linked page. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Dana, I will help work on this, but I think the main Madonna article will be my priority since it's higher visibility and a BLP. --Laser brain (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a problem with a link in the Release history section[edit]

In the Release history section, is it just me, or is the link provided for Australia the same as the first link provided at the end of the table for the US? It doesn't look like an iTunes Australia link to me, and instead it is identical to the other link, unless I'm really too tired to be on Wikipedia. Please check and correct the Australia link if necessary. I did some research but I don't know exactly if I'm supposed to look for one song or an EP.

Wait a second. I can prove that there is a mistake. The cite currently numbered 124, for Australia, is this link:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/4-minutes-remixes-feat.-justin/id325418983

The cite #126, for the US, is this link:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/4-minutes-remixes-feat.-justin/id325418983

Same link indeed, and obviously the Australian one is missing. It's a US link instead. Good luck... Dontreader (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Format for track listings[edit]

Hi IndianBio,

I'm happy to put this into 2-column format if you like. Let me know if that's what you would prefer.

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the edit is that the track listing appears to be completely wrong and instead of presenting the information in a professional way, the whole section appeared to be fancrufty. Like CD singles, Country names, sudden remixer names all scattered together with so much of inline citation. Where as the present version presents the track list and the remixers and formats in a professional way. You are of course welcome to add any new track list or format you have found info online, but please do not change the format. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Another thing, Madonnacollector is really not a reliable source. The format is actually "song name (remixer name) – time" and that's how the pressings are present in any digital or CD being sold. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
That all sounds reasonable. Let's split this up into smaller issues, then. First, PRO-CRD-510460 is a promotional CD. There were at least a dozen different flavors of promotional CDs listed at the fan discographies, and while I'd listen to an argument that we should list all of them, I think that takes us out of the encyclopedia and into fancruft. Would it be ok with you if we limited the listings to what was released commercially? If so, I'd like to remove that one particular entry. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Please be my guest in removing promotional CD listing. The two column split will happen automatically. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I believe that promo releases are generally supposed to be excluded from such listings. But I don't know if that's written anywhere or not. Might just be an unwritten rule. But yes, commercial releases should only be included. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(Thanks, Status.)
As to the reliability of MadonnaCollector: to a first approximation, it isn't reliable. It has been cited in one academic work, and if I can find some more support for the site author's expertise I could see making an argument that the reliability was sufficient for uncontroversial facts. I'm not able to make that argument yet, so I won't be using MadonnaCollector except as a listing of artifacts that can stand on their own.
(And for what it's worth: I don't listen to Madonna and to the best of my knowledge have never heard this song. I'm approaching this problem as a librarian and archivist, so I'm not going to get torqued if the article remains as it is.)
Second question: Is it useful to know that the German and Australian "Maxi" CDs have fewer tracks than the EU and US "Maxi" CDs?
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain the second question a bit more? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Madonnacollector (hence MC, caveats understood, catalog numbers on request) lists a "German Maxi CD" and an "Australian Maxi CD" that have the same track listing as the "UK CD2" listed in the article. This listing differs from the US/EU "Maxi" CD. Would it be appropriate to change "UK CD 2 / AUS CD Single" to "UK CD 2 / AUS Maxi / GER Maxi"?
If there's an implication that a "Maxi" single would have identical tracks regardless of where it was released, then documenting that this isn't the case here might be helpful. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think anywhere and any two different formats containing the same tracklisting should be clubbed under one section. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm being dense. That was "Yes, it's ok to change the headings as proposed"? If not, could you try again? Thanks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The change is affirmative, lol. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, then! Next up: there exists a "US Limited Edition 7" white vinyl doublepack (with "Give it 2 me")" that isn't mentioned in the article's listing. Useful or fancruft? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Genre[edit]

In the infobox, dance-pop is in the genre field, but that is unsourced and not referred to in the body. In the composition section it is called a dance song, although that dance music is not a genre. Are there any reliable sources for the dance-pop (or any other) genre? Adabow (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it stemmed from the usage of the word dance which is transposed as dance-pop. Soem things I found about describing the track as club-track, a direct assertion to dance-pop and other places where the album is called dance-pop and urban tinged. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The Mercury News article does nicely. Thanks. Adabow (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
So shall I add it Adabow? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)