Talk:Truly Madly Deeply (song)

Why 7" after CD?

Why does 7" appear in parentheses after the CD reference underneath the photo? Standard CDs are 5 inches, standard vinyl singles are 7 inches. If this is to differentiate the standard CD from the short-lived 3-inch CD, it would seem unnecessary, as that format was never in wide use. If it is to indicate a vinyl single was also available, perhaps it would be clearer if it appeared after a comma or semicolon, as in < CD; 7" > < CD, 7" vinyl > or simply and perhaps most clearly < CD, vinyl > Abrazame 23:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Was the version released in the U.S. recorded there a year later than the version which was released in Australia? If so, that would seem worthy of explanation in the body of the article; if not, the separate-year citations should obviously be under "Released," not "Recorded." And is there anything that has made this the pinnacle of their work other than it was the highest charting disc of their career? Without elaboration or citation that reads a bit too POV. Abrazame 19:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the error, TMD was recorded at the same time as the rest of the album's songs and was not re-recorded at a later date. Sunhawk 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the pinnacle sentence sounds POV Sunhawk 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

singles

the TMD singles list is far from being complete. needs more work. (will add later when its not 3:30am :) ). there's also a problem with the template as SG had more than 3 singles and a different release order depending on the place (europe got tears of pearls and the rest didn't, australia got universe, ttmab came out twice etc) AilaG 00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going with which singles came out of Australia as the overarcing order since Australia came first when it came to releasing singles. The template is meant to show the "nearest" singles to the one currently being displayed so that users can move back and forth, at least as i understand the template. And yes all the singles need more work, i have been doing my best to find time to fill them out but any help is always appreciated Sunhawk 04:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

CD Cover

The image of the cover for this isn't big enough for the size it's being forced to in the data box on the right. Someone should scan a bigger one (I think the size is in the data box template so that can't really be changed). 87.127.71.250 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to go right ahead and do so. Sunhawk 07:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascada version

Page seperation?

I think it would be better to have the two versions on seperate pages. The normal format of a single page has one info bar with the release information and I think it keeps the information clear to have them seperate since one is the original version and one is a cover by a different artist. Thoughts? Sunhawk 01:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Cover versions should be covered on the same page as the original version. A few examples are "I Will Always Love You", "All by Myself", "Light My Fire", "A Moment like This", "I Drove All Night"... just a few off the top of my head. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be split into two sections; it seems slightly confusing and also cluttered to have two on the same page. Even if other songs (articles) have their covers in the same article, it doesn't mean it's right...though I'm no expert on WP policies/standards. Atomic Taco 05:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having more than one charted single (and the accompanying data and infoboxes) can be quite confusing, particularly with the placement of the #1 chart sequence infobox at the bottom of the article where it reads as if it was the achievement of the most recently discussed version. In addition to that, someone only interested in the first version might not scan through all the Cascada stuff to find the additional material about the Savage Garden version.

On a different matter, what is certain is that the song's original recording by Savage Garden earned several times as much airplay and sales than the remake, yet the remake takes up several times more space in the article. I'm all for acknowledging remakes even if they were only an album track from a major artist, or not greatly successful. But the bottom line would seem to be that it's not encyclopedic to have lesser versions outweigh the greater ones in terms of article coverage. My suggestion to a Cascada fan who doesn't want to see their part of the article severely edited for space and relative significance (as the more recent version is drawing more editors here) is to allow their interest in the song to encourage them to research how the original version did in comparison to their own in the markets they mention in their own portion, for example, and add this data to the Savage Garden portion. Despite the fact that there are more countries with singles charts now than ten or twenty or thirty years ago, or that recent releases would have more interested editors and searchable info than earlier ones, doesn't mean that the inclusion of such material about these lesser versions should be construable as greater success. (And by lesser I simply mean significance in the sales/airplay realm, and notability in the "life" of the song, I haven't heard the Cascada version and so am making no value judgement.) Abrazame 03:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Cascada version is rubbish, but I also think it should have a separate article. The information is there, the single is notable, it would undoubtedly have an article of its own if it were not a cover version, so it should be split off. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the actual song, so as I said before, all versions should be in the same place. I can't see anything about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs but there are discussions on the talk page and this seems to be the consensus. It certainly is what happens at other articles, especially featured ones. If you want this changed, I suggest you talk to WP:SONGS about it. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong genre?

Well, I'm not an expert at determining a song's genre, but this is definitely not an "Industrial, Hard Rock, Hip Hop" song! Could someone please reinsert the genre thing with a correct genre? --The.Modificator (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Formatting nightmare

This article needs to be formatted much better than it is, I can't make out anything in the cascadia section for all the Wiki style issues. (I didn't do it, obviously, but don't have the knowledge to clean it all up.)Cvbear 11:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Chica cherry cola

Do you think it might be a good idea to put a page redirecting from the phrase "chica cherry cola"? I know that this has nothing at all to do with the title of the song, but this song gets mis-named so frequently that I'm almost certain many people are missing the article entirely because there's nothing to go on if you search for that in Wikipedia. "Chica cherry cola" has, in a fashion, become an unofficial title for the song. I'd put up a redirect myself, but honestly, I don't know how. Do you all think this is a good idea? Dragonjohann 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're thinking of their first single, "I Want You," which includes the phrase "chic-a-cherry cola" in two verses. Mentioning the phrase in the article for "I Want You" is certainly a good idea, and would seem to be a precursor to establishing a redirect. Incidentally, note the way the phrase is formatted in the actual lyrics, despite the fact that two other misconstruances of the phrase are more popular hits on Google. Get the phrase right in the Wiki article and, after all the mirror sites get done copying it, it will be the most popular! Abrazame 03:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, that was definitely a major brain fluffy there. Thanks, I'll put this comment on the right page. Dragonjohann 68.216.95.39 17:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese cover

There is also a cover version little known outside PT/BR by brother-sister duo Sandy & Junior, called No Fundo Do Meu Curaçao. -andy 92.229.164.137 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)