Jump to content

Talk:About You Now

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

Myspace as a reference

[edit]

Myspace is not a reliable source - see [1]- so stop quoting myspace! — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 03:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album title

[edit]

The album title is still TBA. Please cease changing it to "Better Without Mutya" as this is a wild rumor without any sort of credible source. A quick Google search shows only 3 results, 2 pertaining to rumored singles and one not pertaining to anything at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.7.206.128 (talk) 05:53:21, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

The album title is NOT EVERYTHING CHANGES. STOP. CHANGING. IT. 68.7.204.156 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

[edit]

I am sorry for continuing the Better Without Mutya thing. I didn't start it but thought it was absolutely hilarious and it should be the title cause they are Better Without Mutya. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.181.102 (talk) 08:22, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

That is against Wikipedia policy. Please stop! — *Hippi ippi 12:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

[edit]

stop putting all these stupid song titles for the b-sides, none of this has been confirmed. the only sugababes songs to have been confirmed are "about you now" "denial" "change" and "keep sane" so stop posting all this bullshit, and also the name of their album is TBA, its not "Everything Changes" so stop messing it around and making up a tracklisting. your giving people the wrong information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.161.100 (talk) 02:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

= Release Date

[edit]

It says here that it is released on October 1, when on their official website it says released on 24th September. So which is correct?

www.sugababes.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.65.172 (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image File:51c7N29rNGL. SS500 .jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Chart's section

[edit]

Hi everybody, I just want to make an announcement, I remove from the section of the charts of Miranda's cover the "Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100", because the song is now at the Top 100 or Billboard Hot 100, so that's makes the song to not be anymore on the other chart. Thanks for your comprehension (Charlie White (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Performance

[edit]

Let's get it right. Lip sync is diff from live performance and it is a fact that all performers during the Macy parade lip sync their songs. So leave it. It is to differentiate how they sing.Jeneral28 (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Macy article--"... the performers lip-syncing their singing" Can't you read?Jeneral28 (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Macy's article says nothing of HER lip syncing and there is no source to show she did, therefore this article shouldn't say something that can't be confirmed. Second even if she did lip sync it isn't notable, do you see any of the Miley Cyrus concert articles mention her lip syncing? No. Frehley 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is to differentiate the lip syncing. I didn't say Miley lip sync you brought that up and you will have to deal with that--I said all performers during the Macy parade lip sync. ALL. READ ALL. The Macy article specified that Cosgrove performed. Therefore, the fact stands.

Exactly YOU said all the performers lip synced, the Macy's article says MOST not all, therefore we can't confirm that Cosgrove lip synced. Note: I brought up the Miley thing to show to you that mentioning lip syncing isn't a notable fact to mention in articles. Frehley 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most and all is not different if you research (beyond YOURE CONSTANT GOOGLING) you will find that she did lip sync. I don't care whether Miley lip sync--the issue is that she lip sync during one performance and performed it during another. Under the lip sync article SO MANY OTHER ARTISTS are exposed as to be lip syncing (WITHOUT SOURCES) so it holds that she lip sync during the parade.

User:Jeneral28|Jeneral28]] (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all i have not googled ANYTHING, Second i can guarantee if this was one of Jennette McCurdy's songs you wouldn't be rushing to add that she lip synced, in fact you would probably be removing that info. Frehley 23:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you seem to be in favour of Cosgrove. I seem to be in favour of tell the truth of performances. I can tell that you and your friend Aoi only just google around.Jeneral28 (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this even an issue? It's not the least bit uncommon that such performances are lip-synched, is it? The way I see it, the current wording "Cosgrove gave a lip sync performance of the song" is problematic because it stresses that fact, but offers nothing to verify it. Jeneral, you say you researched it, but offer nothing to proof it. You attempt to conclude this from information given in the Macy article is incorrect synthesis of sources/original research, and is not enough to comply with one of our most important policies, Verifiability.
Also, I'm not quite sure what your boon is with using search engines to verify facts. You haven't offered any concrete evidence of your opinion at all, and "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). Wikipedia prefers listing verifiable facts, so unless you can offer anything to back this rather non-neutral bit, it has to go. Amalthea 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor user is hounded by three merciless "admins" whom I believe as Jeneral 28 does, is biased towards Cosgrove herself. But none of these admins have bothered to look at the subject closely. 1)The Macy Parade, beyond your common search engine stuff (as Jeneral28 noted) is an event where performers lip sync. That is a fact witnesses by the thousands attending the parade, watching it on screen or if you like on the net. 2) The new link--and its not new--you people cited from popdirt.com, which I',m sure is not a realiable source to beign with, shows Cosgrove's own Youtube video, where there is irreplaceble evidence that she was lip sync two of her songs. If you don't agree, then why was that website used as a reference in the first place my dear esteemed Wikipedia admins.

3)Jeneral28, I believe is trying to say there is a difference between lip sync and performing. Not all of you I see from your profiles are music experts yourself and neither can any other wiki user claim to be without evidence. But what stands is that there was a performance of a song during lip sync event. You Frehley, bring up the irrelevant example of Miley Cyrus. As Jeneral28 said, what has she got to do with this? There is evidence on the Macy Page that Miley performed at the Macy event but which songs did she perform? If you are so uptight about saying "perform" instead of "lip sync" please feel free to state that under the Miley song article. This gives a hint that you are biased in protecting Cosgrove.

4) Where is the harm and stress in showing lip sync vs performing? Please look at your own lipsyncing in music article. There is a major absence of sources that there was lip sync in the first few paragraphs! Don't you think it's funny that you pride yourself with evidence over this girl's "performance" when you provide no evidence (and I mean evidence beyond search engine work) in The Phatom of the Opera, La Vie en Rose etc etc? Is Cosgrove demeaned, slandered, her actions defamed in any way if you write lip sync? Suddenly you are concerned that Miley Cyrus lip sync (but it's not an issue to bring it up), and when there is evidence on the website that Cosgrove lip sync, you people pounce back and give your "righteous" defence, which is more a defence of the artist, not the action concerned.147.188.244.59 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, people come to Wikipedia to learn facts. If you can't give a distinct fact between performing live, lip sync, miming etc etc, then wiki has failed its mission, as it has been countless of times.147.188.244.59 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eye-witness reports will still need to be carried by a reliable source. Personally I don't even doubt that it's true. It's true for almost any performer with an intrinsic dance routine. Britney Spears lip-synchs most of her performances, I seem to recall. Nonetheless, I don't see that it matters here in the first place. The source is only there to show that she did perform at that parade, I'd say (and you're right that the source is not the best). Furthermore, I believe "perform" is the most neutral way to go here. Obviously, claiming that "she sang at the parade" would be just as contested and unsourced.
Which article about lip synching are you referring to? Lip sync doesn't have anything about e.g. Phantom of the Opera. In any case, "search engine work" as I mentioned above is the way to provide references to an article, to make it verifiable. Imagine if we allowed eye witness reports by editors to support any fact in any article, without reliable sourcing to back it up? How useful would this place be after a month?
No, if you want this fact in the article, I strongly suggest that you a) show why this is relevant, which I still don't see, and b) do some search engine work yourself.
Regards, Amalthea 08:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jeneral28, and 147.188.244.59. Sad case of poor wikipedia facts. And to Frehley, Jennette McCurdy has not lip sync because she has not a) performed on stage b) stated in an interview that she would never c) has shown, via her official Youtube that she can sing.147.188.244.60 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to Amalthea,search engine work is not reliable. 147.188.244.60 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. And the fact that you, 147.188.244.60 are only sitting once computer away from 147.188.244.59 is a coincidence? Please have a look at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and, once your block expired, we can try and have a constructive conversation about this. The way you're going about now is guaranteed to not change anything. Amalthea 09:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound66 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It has Gold in the UK now (400.000 copies) -->http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx (Search for "Sugababes") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.187.159.156 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on About You Now. 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) 01:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on About You Now. 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) 12:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:About_You_Now&oldid=1204453599"