Talk:Get Together (Madonna song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Get Together (Madonna song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Get Together (Madonna song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Get Together (Madonna song) is part of the Confessions on a Dance Floor 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 22, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
January 9, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted
October 27, 2020	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
November 13, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted
October 10, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed
July 10, 2023	Good topic candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 1, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the limited radio airplay of "Get Together" in the US spawned a petition, outrage, and conspiracy theories among Madonna fans?
Current status: Good article

Electronic music Low‑importance

	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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Madonna Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Madonna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Madonna 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.MadonnaWikipedia:WikiProject MadonnaTemplate:WikiProject MadonnaMadonna articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternate Video

I'm sure you know of it. Should it be added?--124.149.58.113 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no source for it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is YouTube and it's in fact the only official video on any Madonna channel. Should this version not be referenced as the official video and not the alternate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSDjPyG1O3U — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.255.50 (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Video 2

The alternative version of the video is available in Mtv.tv. http://www.mtv.tv/music/artists/madonna/videos/get-together-360582/ Shouldn't it be added? --Watquaza (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't watch it due to copyrights, but in my opinion, it should be added in either the MV section or as an external link (if global, better). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use this [1] to watch it, and in the part below where it says "Featured Videos" you can visualize that it's the alternative version. It's likely to be official too, then it should be in both sections. --Watquaza (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing two versions of the video indeed on MTV. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have the dvd of Celebration? I think that version is the one that is featured. --Watquaza (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the addition of the second image from the video. It fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC##a at present since the alternate version is not being discussed at all. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Get Together (Madonna song). 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Video referenced?

The only video referenced is one that is not in fact the official video on Madonna's YouTube channel. In fact, the only way to access such video as references is to locate it on a lower-quality site. Therefore, is it even correct to list the video referenced as the "main" video and not even reference the alternate? It seems that the one currently labeled as "alternate" is in fact the official video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSDjPyG1O3U — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okaysdonny (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cryptodidymosphaerites

Created by 11JORN (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 01:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Article was made as a GA on 10 October but I accidentally forgot to add that. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A recent good article. No close paraphrasing or neutrality detected. A QPQ has been provided. The hook is sourced, but I do not find it particularly interesting or "hooky". These kinds of switches in terms of singles happen quite often. I would think there would be a more interesting fact or hook that was more unique to this song? This just seems generic to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: How about "... that a lack of radio coverage caused "Get Together" to garner lower viewership than usual spawning a petition, outrage, and conspiracy theories among Madonna fans?" Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/us-radio-hangs-up-on-madonna-57759/ Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a much stronger hook imo. Remember song titles are put in quotation marks not in italics. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the hook has been settled upon, I believe this should be ready to go. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think should be necessary specify the name of United States (something like this "a lack of US radio coverage caused..."). Back in context, the Confessions era was understood as a generally success everywhere (with Guinness Book giving the record of chart-topping album/single in most countries) but a general absence in the US context. Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Apoxyomenus:@Onegreatjoke: I agree with you and apologies for missing this point in my review. I think it would be beneficial to streamline the hook to add this in. Would something like "...the limited radio airplay of "Get Together" in the US spawned a petition, outrage, and conspiracy theories among Madonna fans?" be more acceptable? Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: No problem. It looks fine. Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This will have to reviewed by another editor then as I cannot review a hook that I have worked on. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do like the crispness of the last hook by Aoba, should be good to go. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]