Talk:All I Ever Wanted (album)

All I Ever Wanted

Popjustice.com says the album is now called All I Ever Wanted, and that the guy who runs it says he was told that title by Kelly's record company. [1] 86.14.125.38 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Talk:Kelly Clarkson#Masquerade. At this point, we only have one (supposedly) reliable source for the title, so we'll have to keep that one, albeit with a careful wording. Cheers, Amalthea 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what can I say. Supposedly reliable. :-\ Shame on the Wall Street Journal. --Amalthea 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

not the Wall Street Journal's fault. Albums go through several titles before a final title is chosen. They had old information. Even when things are 'confirmed' they can change, which is more reason why wikipedia wants sources other than blogs and fansites, like directly from the label and artist management 76.109.42.17 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Album LEAKED !!!

hey the whole album has leaked from itunes norway !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by S3o0dk94 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

this was an error on ITunes part, and the album is no longer available until the release date. LEaks are illegal, and psoting about them here will only encourage people to find them on the net rather than buying the album.. which is also illegal 76.109.42.17 (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Album/Song leaks are not notible as per WP:ALBUM#LEAK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alankc (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I Do Not Hook Up

It is going for radio adds on April 7, 2009. I have tried adding it earlier tonight and someone removed it EVEN THOUGH there was a clear reference link provided. Can anyone give me any reason why this is happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.151.105 (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but how does your reference verify that it will be the second single, and that it will be released on April 7, 2009? As I understand it that only means that it will be on air from then on. --Amalthea 15:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kelly would not be releasing a "radio only" single at this point. If it is being released to radio, it is almost a guarantee it'll be the second single. In addition, the single cover has already been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.151.105 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit too speculative for my taste. From the horse's mouth: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. I wouldn't oppose adding information about the radio release to the article (although I'm not convinced of the reliablility of the source), but deducing that it will certainly be the next single is stretching the source one step too far.
Is the album cover you're referring to this one? By default, an article cover found on a blog site or forum is almost always fan made, and not the official cover. --Amalthea 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, and I do agree we should wait for an official announcement. However, surely the link I had provided did give a radio release date? Is there any reason it cannot be added in the article as a song being released to radio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.151.105 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind. Some editors will question whether a US radio release is noteworthy enough, but I'm neutral in that regard. Cheers, Amalthea 01:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason Radio and Records isn't considered a reliable source by many is simply that it isn't an official source for the artist or their label, and information from them can be premature and changed thereafter. This causes questionability to the article itself and falls under crystal ball (and makes it look more like a fansite than an encycolpedia of factual history). People seem to forget wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and encycolpedia's are histiry referances, not future referances. Thge song may very well be a single, but until it is, anything can happen. Hope that clears a little up. Alankc (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Singles should only be added to articles when they actually are singles. It doesn't matter what the source for an upcoming single may be, things can change by thwe time the single is actually released. Clarkson has had this happen several times already. She, and people at her label have anonunced upcoming singles (You Thought Wrong, Addicted), only to release a totally differant song as the single isntead (and the songs announced never becoming a single). As for album cover art... That is never released to the public so far in advance. Official album art is released about 2 weeks prior tot he single release. That's simply how it is done. Alankc (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you Mr. Knowseverything, get OVER it "I Do Not Hook Up" is the next single, Kelly said that on the radio, and it will be released in April 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.120.68 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarkson said in interviews it 'MIGHT' be. That confirms nothing. Until a single is offcially anounced by the record label, it is not official. If you don't like wikipedia guidelines, don't visit wikipedia. This isn't a fansite where rumors and 'what may be' gets added. Alankc (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop being in denial. I was listening to KISS FM in early February, and Ryan Seacrest introduced Kelly, and she said she would premiere a new single to radio in April, 2009, and that it would be either "I Do Not Hook Up" or "Already Gone." Then a week later she reported in a news interview that on April 7, 2009, "I Do Not Hook Up" would be released to radio as the second single, with an official/digital release date of April 14, 2009. Get your facts straight before you go off on her. Have you been on Wikipedia for 6 and a half years? Didn't think so. Are you a NON-VANDALIZING editor? Didn't think so. Have you been a Kelly follower since the day she showed up on AI? Didn't think so. Look, I know what I am talking about! Okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.120.68 (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, i've been a wikipedia editor for three years, and a follow of Clarkson since AI. You're not even signed in to wikipedia, never mind following wikipedia guidelines which are very clear. Start a fansite and put what you want on it, here, either follow guidelines or don't do anything, it's pretty simple. The reasons the information continues to be reverted has been stated clearly, by mroe than one person, both here and in edit summaries. The person who began this discussion is not causing problems, however your attack has been reported. Alankc (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Toronto's biggest station, CHUM FM, has recently added a poll to ask viewers how they feel about the new single, "I Do Not Hook Up". Here is the link, http://www.chumfm.com/PopSites/New-Music/default.asp. I think it is safe to say it will be the second single off of the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.200.46 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

When it is a single, it can be added to the article. Alot can happen between now and then. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of history, not the future, with a few exceptions where special templates exist along with guidelines for such information. Since the single isn't notible yet, as it hasn't been released so it hasn't charted or impacted anything, none of the templates fit the song. Alankc (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is some video information for "I Do Not Hook Up", http://www.kellyclarksonexpress.yuku.com/topic/12532/t/Some-casting-info-for-next-video.html

that is not a reliable source for anything, and nowhere in the article does it say what song the video is for Alankc (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, stop being difficult. You need to face the facts that "I Do Not Hook Up" is the second single. Oh, I have one other question for you. What did you think of "Irvine"?Astroman1234 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

first several lines of album info

...are all in future-tense. Since this is a released album, this should be reworded.12.162.122.6 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Single

It is rumoured that it will be "I Don't Hook Up" I've heard it a couple of times on the radio in Australia. It's still uncomfirmed though. I think there is a possible chance that it will be "Already Gone" Look at the U.S. iTunes Top 100. As I write this message it sits at #52. Her only other song within the Top 100 is "My Life Would Suck Without You" Perhaps "Already Gone" may have gained some airplay or some other sort of promotion. Child Funk (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

just becausde a song gets airplay doesn't mean it will be a single. Clarkson has had non-singles make the charts before. Alankc (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In any case I Do Not Hook Up (single) has been re-created after being deleted several times. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 21:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And I just nominated it for deletion. It stays. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

it's redirected to the album page. people need to read qikipedia guidelines before they start editting things. Even when a song is a single, it only gets it's own page when it's a notable single (charts well, huge critic reception, etc..) Alankc (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Charts *well* and "huge critic reception"? Reeeeeally? Tons of singles pages shouldn't exist then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_(Heidi_Montag_song)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Waste_Your_Time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Darlin%27

hay haaaay just a few examples. 98.168.204.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

I Do Not Hook Up now has it's own Wikipedia page, so I think the redirect should be changed from All I Ever Wanted (album) to I Do Not Hook Up (Kelly Clarkson song). Anyone agree?

Electropop genre

I have removed electropop from the infobox and per WP:BRD, I am bringing the discussion here. Arlonelle and their IP addresses 96.242.204.196 and 96.242.202.220 added electropop to the infobox without a reliable source. When removed based on no reliable sources, they added sources that did not say the album was electropop. When removed based on sources not backing up the genre, they reverted with this edit summary, "You're not even reading them.Remove electropop as one of the genres again and administrators will block you.A handful of collaborations with OneRepublic's Ryan Tedder have a more electro-infused sound." Yet this statement still does not say the album is electrop. Until such time that a reliable source can be found to say the song is electropop, the genre should not be added to the infobox. Aspects (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Already Gone Citation

Kelly has announced that "Already Gone" will be the third single, but I haven't read any interview where she confirmed it as such. Is there a reason why there is no citation given in the "Already Gone" portion of this Wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.202.249 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

no, no she didn't, she said 'it might be a single'.. and even so, until the record label offcially announces it, it's not a single and not notabile as one for wikipedia People jsut need to listen better to what is said and pay closer attention to those illegally taken cell phone video's from concerts, then elarn that jsut because an artist says something, doesn't mean it's what will happen. Clarkson has said a few songs 'will be a single' that enver were.Alankc (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Already Gone release & single

I am sick of the people who have stated that "Already Gone" was released on June 25. The song was confirmed as the third single, however there is currently no release date. People are using the 25th as an excuse for the release date because that is when it was announced as the next single. THERE IS NO RELEASE DATE ANNOUNCED YET! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.57.101 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Whoever keeps putting "Already Gone" in the other songs section should seriously stop. "Already Gone" has been confirmed as the third single alright...god.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.57.101 (talk)

Already Gone hasn't been released yet (as of July 2nd), so it doesn't belong under singles without a future single template until it is a released single. unfortunatly, everyone wants to edit wikipedia without reading guidelines. Alankc (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Alankc, you have been on my case for years. Yes, everyone does want to edit Wikipedia without reading guidelines, like the two of us. However, that is a personal attack and I have the feeling that I should report you, but I won't because I am mature, and am sick of your harrassment. I don't understand why "Already Gone" has a section, yet most of the info for the single is under OTHER SONGS...no! Come on, if it is about "Already Gone" and "Already Gone" has a section it should be under "Already Gone" and not OTHER SONGS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongebobelmodude (talk • contribs) 02:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I made it very clear why.. it's a future single, not a released single yet. if you want it in a section, use a future single template, it's very simple, and wikipedia guidelines. If you don't liek the guidelines, discuss it with wikipedia,l not me. Alankc (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you just do me a favor though and stop harassing me! I have reported you, and there will be something coming to you soon. I don't care that you have the "Stupid Original Barnstar", but that doesn't mean that you can harass me. It already has a section anyway so why is all the information not in its section?

who's harrassing you? revert edits you make that don't belong is not harrassment. and again, the song is not yet a single, it's a future single, if you want to include the future single template with it on the page, that's fine, otherwise, the info about it being tyhe third single will wait until it is a single.. Read your talk page, you have a few comments from others with such warnings, not by me, including one from wikipedia itself for not signing your comments (which shows you're not aware of wikipedia editting guidelines,, and should read a little about it, then your edits won't be reverted as much). I'm done with this conversation, the wikipedia administrators can handle it from here Alankc (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Already Gone has now been added with proper template, it wasn't that difficult, and would have saved everyone a lot of yelling. When the song IS a single, actually released... starting the day of the release, the future single template can be removed. You can all stop vandalizing the page and trying to make it into a fan site now :) Alankc (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Alankc, HAPPY BIRTHDAY! And I am not being facetious. Anyway, although I think you can be extremely arrogant, I wanted to say that the block has made me think about all the mistakes I have made on Wikipedia. I want to apologize, and especially to you. Although you have done mean things to me, I have done the same. This whole argument was dumb, and since we edit the same pages, I was wondering, could you help me with Wikipedia? I have read up on rules, but I'm confused. Would you please teach me? Thank you Spongebobelmodude (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.57.101 (talk)

I didn't block you, i'm not an admin here Alankc (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I know you didn't —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.57.101 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't Let Me Stop You

Whomever is adding "Don't Let Me Stop You" as the fourth single should stop. Kelly has never (as far as I know) claimed it was the next single, and even if she did, until the label announces it, it's just a rumor.