Talk:Dangerously in Love/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merging from Dangerously in Love 2

The song was an airplay-only promo single, and this album article is short enough for the tdtvghk.bjklnihloouinkmouiujiobhkbharticlehgygyg 'juhugtufut6fgyu'to be merged in. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dangerously In Love 2, which probably would have resulted in a "delete" or "merge" had somebody not redirected the article to the album page. Extraordinary Machine 15:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this article doesn't need to be merged because more information can be added or it has enough to be an article. I'm right. Charmed 3 July 2006

See Wikipedia:Notability (songs), as well as the AFD discussion I listed above. If more info can be added to either article (or both), then do it. But as they currently stand, I think it would be more useful for readers if they were merged. Extraordinary Machine 13:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone noticed, but there was racist vandalism on this page in regards to the album cover. I deleted it after trying not to be offended and moved on, but did anyone know who did this? I think that guy should get a taste of Wiki-Justice.

Sales

DIL sold 11 million i tell u!!!!http://www.b-day.co.uk/www/news_view.php?content_id=45see this, it says she sold 11 MILLION RECORDS!!!

Go To http://www.beyonceonline.com/main.html and then on timeline... there u can read that DIL sold 6 million copies ww!!! It's Beyonce's official site!!!!!

As of 2006 she has sold over 11 million, but while the album was on the world charts in 2003, it sold 6,000,000

• The Album did not managed to sold more than 8 millions, this is sales inflations, and according to Nielsen SoundScan and MediaTraffic it sold 7,7million worldwide, but due to USA Shipments and Retail versions it got up to 8,23million copies sold
  

Eduemoni 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WOW! ok - I looked into it and Beyonceworld.net HAS stated sales of 16 million - and some vandalizer is calling them a liar and splitting that in half! WOW - TOTAL VANDALISM! FIND OUT WHI DID IT!

Ok - if you search 'Dangerously in love million' on google - on the top sites (other than wikipedia, which is filled with beyonce haters [cough/cough]) "over ten million" is constantly reported. Which makes 11 million sound possibe.

I will say this once, Wikipedia is not a chat room for fans, it is an information source where "kind and reasonable" people can upload completely 100% true information. Just because a fan site says she has sold so many records doesn't mean its true. Try not going to official Beyonce sites ot any sites where she is loved a lot because people can lie. The amount of sales that are needed here are the ones received while the album was still on the charts!Generation talk123 15:03, 13 January 2007

The album has sold a little over six million copies worldwide. http://www.mediatraffic.de/top-album-achievements.htm 69.209.199.91 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Daddy" isn't a hidden track!

My US Edition has Daddy as a seperate track, it even lists it on the back.

What should be included in the article is that it is an enhanced CD.

Stopitplease92 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

DIL has sold over 8 million worldwide..LOOK it up and you'll see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.84.158 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you guys go on any nelson site, it would prove that DIL only sold 8 million copies so stop changing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.193.233 (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much

Certifications

• 4× platinum

RIAA: 4,000,000

• Platinum

RIANZ: 15,000

CAPIF: 40,000

IFPI: 40,000

ARIA: 70,000

CRIA: 100,000

IFPI: 200,000

IFPI: 1,000,000

• 2× platinum

BPI: 600,000

• 2× gold

SNEP: 200,000

• Gold

IFPI: 10,000

IFPI: 15,000

IFPI: 15,000

IFPI: 20,000

NVPI: 30,000

This information is really too much. Big markets only. --Efe (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RIAA, CRIA, and ARIA are definitely big. I believe all European markets are important as well—at least most of them. Perhaps RIANZ and CAPIF could be crossed out. What do you suggest? Funk Junkie (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

References

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Not a major deal, but seeing other albums that are GA's, it would be best to fully include the release date of the album. Fixed Question: Is guested a word to use? Fixed In the Background section, the sentence ---> "In 2003, she collaborated with then-boyfriend Jay-Z", the sentence reads that maybe they broke-up, even though they just got married, a little fixing to the sentence might help. Changed to long-time boyriend Jay-Z. I will not use then-husband because there was no confirmation yet from the concerned people In the Production section, "Although Knowles do not create beats herself", sounds a little strange and needs to be fixed. Removed hersel In the Musical style section, who's "MC"? I dont know; not specified in the news article. Removed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Is there a source for this ---> "While her group mates focused on gospel and alternative, Knowles remained on making R&B"? Sourced

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Efe who got the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Acclaim and Impact section

Most of this information either belongs in other categories or shouldn't be included on a album info page.

Acclaim and impact

Rebecca Louie of New York Daily News considered Knowles as becoming "sultry solo star" who "blossomed from a girly group".[6] However, critics have found that the album is not yet the record that would set her independently. While the first half of the album received positive feedbacks, the following half was criticized. Kelefa Sanneh of The New York Times said that it missed the harmonies Knowles had in Destiny's Child records. She went on to comment that although Knowles is undeniably a "strong and independent" singer, she becomes stronger "when she's got a posse behind her".[16]

This section above belongs under critical reception.

The creative output of sessions for Dangerously in Love has left several tracks ready for another pressing.[4][47] While filming for "Me, Myself and I"'s music video in late 2003, Knowles planned to release a follow-up album that would comprise of left-over songs from Dangerously in Love.[48] The move was prompted when a P. Diddy-collaboration called "Summertime", a left-over track from the album, was sent to radio stations and received favorable response.[49] Meanwhile, the success of the album incited the public to infer that it signals Destiny's Child to finally part ways, as pop singer Justin Timberlake "could not go back to 'N Sync after tasting solo success".[4] However, Knowles said that their side projects were only "a brief diversion in the juggernaut that has become Destiny's Child".[12] As time did not permit, Knowles' musical aspirations were put on hiatus to concentrate for her Super Bowl performance—slated to sing the US national anthem—and the recording of Destiny's Child's fourth album, Destiny Fulfilled,[4][47] although the group finally disbanded in 2005.

This section belongs under Background or production

With the release of Dangerously in Love and the combined commercial success of "Crazy in Love" and "Baby Boy", Knowles established herself a viable solo artist. The acclaim of Knowles during the Grammy Awards had facilitated her to enter the echelon of A-list singers like Alicia Keys, Norah Jones, and Lauryn Hill.[37] Knowles tied them for most Grammy won by a single female artist, although the feat was considerably "spoiled" after losing the Album of the Year and Record of the Year accolades.[37] The album has also facilitated her to become one of the marketable artists in the industry.[15] She appeared on the cover of numerous magazines, guested TV for promotions, and has signed lucrative commercial deals.[12] Knowles signed to PepsiCo, a conglomerate beverage manufacturer, in 2003, and appeared on several TV commercials for its products. She also became the spokesperson for L'Oreal, a large cosmetics company.[10]

This marketing part is debatable, she received the deal with L'Oreal before Dangerously In love came out, her first commercial was in 2002 during the Austin powers Movie run. Remember she had the afro and everything. Also a lot of this info belongs in the artist page and not the album page. PhoenixPrince (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. Those are effects of the album to Knowles' career and about the Loreal thing, I did not check it but I removed already, as you said. --Efe (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dangerously in Love

I've noticed you've moved the album Dangerously in Love to Dangerously In Love several times on the basis that it uses a two-part phrasal verb. Not to insult your intelligence, but it doesn't; there isn't even a verb in Dangerously in Love. "Dangerously" is an adverb, but "in" is a preposition and "Love" is a noun. So, it uses a prepositional phrase rather than a two-part phrasal verb. I've moved the article back since then. Hope this clarifies things, Xnux the Echidna 00:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clarifying. But I disagree with your assessment. On second thought, "in love" may not be a "phrasal verb" as I had previously stated. But what it is, however, is an idiomatic phrase meaning "deeply passionate (about)", the entire meaning of which would be lost if "in" was separated from "Love". The use of "in" in that sense does not constitute a preposition; it does not indicate a spatial nor directional relationship between the adverb "Dangerously" and the word "love". "In love" signifies a closer connection, almost as if they were one word, one expression.

Secondly, adverbs don't usually precede nouns; adverbs modify other adverbs (in some cases), adjectives and verbs. Orane (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But I'll wait for your reply before changing anything. Orane (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There can't be a relation to "love" in a case like this, though, and certainly not in relation to an adverb. An adverb cannot modify a noun, plain and simple, and certainly not a preposition. The adverb "dangerously" modifies the adjective "in love", since the adverb is describing the extent of being in love. In this case, "in love" acts as one phrase; it is a state of being, a state of feeling, and it is a single idiomatic phrase, not a preposition and a noun. If I substitute another adverb for "Dangerously", then your point would lose ground. What about the expression "So In Love"? What would be "in relation" to "love"? Orane (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is in relation to "Love"... but there doesn't need to be any relation. Take In and out of Love for example. "Out of" isn't capitalized even though there's nothing in relation to it, but since it's a preposition, we don't capitalize it. You're right: "in love" is an adjective, but the words that make up "in love" are a preposition and a noun. On In and out of Love, "out of" is one preposition, so since it is five letters or above it technically should be capitalized as per WP:CAPS or WP:MUSTARD. However, "out of" consists of two prepositions, so we treat each separately and don't capitalize either word. This is the precedent I'm arguing for here; I don't necessarily agree with it, but Wikipedia has been using it for a long while. You might want to bring it up at WP:NC if you really feel strongly against it. Anyways, as per this quirky little Wikipedia naming convention, the "in" in Dangerously in Love wouldn't be capitalized since, even though it's part of an adjective, it is still treated as separate from "Love." Xnux the Echidna 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you're smart. It's great that you're a grammar freak like me. Regarding the "in and out" thing. I really don't have an answer for that. This whole thing has confused me somewhat, but I still feel that the DIL is an adjective, and adjectives need to be capitalized, regardless of whether it's a pronoun on it's own. But it's fine. I don't think I'll change it. Not many people would agree with it. And no thanks to bringing it up on WikiProject Music. They don't like me very much, and vice versa ahhaha. Orane (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I hope it's ok if I jump in...

I'm pretty sure that "out of love" is a back-formation based on the idiomatic "in love". It seems that "in love" is rather different from "in Tennessee", but does that mean it's not a prepositional phrase? At any rate, I would suggest that Talk:Dangerously in Love would be a good place to discuss this, if only to prevent this same discussion from iterating many times in relation to the same article. A note at WP:MOSCAPS might also be helpful, to get opinions from more grammar-freaks. It would be nice to answer the question with a minimum of further page-moves (i.e., 0 or 1). -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GTBacchus, that's a very good observation. "In love" is different from "in Tennessee", and it makes all the difference. It's just like "Come On Over" and "Knock on Wood". In the first phrase, "Come On" is a part of one expression and becomes a verb, in which case "on" would be upper case. In the second example, "on" is a preposition, describing where one knocks. I don't have an issue with it anymore though. But I ask Xnux's permission to paste his comments, along with mine, on the article's talk page for future reference. Orane (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it pretty much sums up the entire issue. And I asked your permission because of ethical reasons. An editor, who was a scientist in real life, and I had a dispute once, and he was angry that I had copied his comments without his permission, as if he had put them there; he felt that I should have linked back to the original conversation (and to be honest, most people always link the conversation, rather than copy it). So from then on, I've been careful. Orane (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh... I think I'm puzzled, or at least willing to play dumb in order to learn. Observe: "He may think he's in love, but in fact, he's in trouble... in Tennessee." Where is the line between prepositional phrase and idiomatic adjective that looks like a prepositional phrase? How can a naive user of the language such as myself tell the difference? What does a widely accepted style guide or other grammatical source say about this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to look up formal definitions and grammar rules, which I'll definitely do tomorrow. But before I go to bed, let me just tell you my simple method: if the word that would normally be a preposition (in, to, on) can be combined to the other word to form a single idea with a single meaning (for instance, a synonym), then chances are, it is not a prepositional phrase. "In love" means "enamored" or "deeply infatuated with"; "in fact" means "actually", "also", or "in reality"; "in trouble" means "facing difficulties/hardships". However, there is no single meaning for the expression "in Tennessee". The two words cannot be understood together as one phrase: "in" has it's own separate meaning, while "Tennessee" has it's own separate definition as well. Orane (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you may be distinguishing the literal, physical, meaning of the preposition "in" from any metaphorical meaning, where something is "in" some state of being, as opposed to being physically contained within a certain place or container. What if I say I'm "in a state of confusion?" That's the same as "confused", but does it make it not a prepositional phrase, according to what you're saying? Less abstractly, "in jail" can be replaced with the word "incarcerated", but surely "in jail" is a prepositional phrase, no? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you asked me for idiomatic phrases, as opposed to strickly phrases that begin with a preposition. "In jail" isn't idiomatic, so it would automatically be taken for "in" and "jail"— two separate words, but yes, a prepositional phrase. Likewise with "in a state of confusion". It's not an idiom; unless there was a phrase that went "in confused". Again, it has to with words that pair off. It's confusing, I know. But (and I hope that I don't confuse you more), it's kinda like a phrasal verb. Words like "Carry On", "Stand Up", "Come On" form one idiomatic phrase, and because "up" and "on" are not prepositions, they wouldn't normally be lower case when used in titles. I'm at school now, but I'll explain more when I get home. Orane (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, idiomatic language is figurative and metaphorical. So, in your previous message, I guess you spotted the difference yourself, without knowing it. Orane (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, figurative and metaphorical. So much more language is figurative and metaphorical than we tend to realize. "In a state of confusion" is figurative and metaphorical. I'm rather less confused than you seem to think I am. I guess I'm pointing out, with questions, that the grey area is well-populated, and that clear distinctions are therefore necessarily arbitrary, at some point.

The phrase "in a state of confusion" uses the metaphor STATE OF BEING = CONTAINER. A state of being is not actually a container, that we can be within the physical limits of, in the way that we can be in a room, or in a box. It's a deep metaphor that we don't tend to think of as a metaphor, but it is one nevertheless. If I say I'm "in a state of some kind", and if I say I'm "in love", I'm appealing to the same nature of metaphor, the STATE OF BEING = CONTAINER one. Why are we "in" a state, as opposed to being "with" one, or "on" one, or "under" one?

This is not an original idea of mine, about metaphor; George Lakoff has been saying this for decades.

In case it wasn't clear, I don't believe that there exists a clear, well-defined, and universally applicable distinction between idiomatic language and non-idiomatic language. The grey area is well-populated; therefore the distinction is not clear and well-defined. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a scholarly analysis of idiom as much more complicated than phrases whose meaning is undistributed to the individual words. You might enjoy it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, first off you sound angry, so if offended you without knowing, I apologize. Secondly, I've never said that all figurative language are idioms. The state of confusion thing you're talking about may be figurative, but it's not an idiom. Orane (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I'm sorry to sound angry. Is it the all-caps I used to express the metaphor? I borrowed that style directly from Lakoff, and I acknowledge that it's odd. I'm certainly not angry with you. I did have a bit of a rotten day, and if I threw some of that your way, then I apologize. Maybe it was my saying that I'm less confused than you seem to think I am. I think that's true, but I'm not upset about it.

I am interested in this question, and I am fairly convinced that these terms cannot be well-defined to an arbitrary level of precision. If I am wrong, I'm open to hearing that.

I'm not aware that I suggested that you said or implied that all figurative language are idioms. I don't believe that you said that. I do believe that the area of language we're talking about is extremely sticky, and difficult to sort out precisely. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

True. And thanks. By the way, you can just go to answers.com to check if the expression is idiomatic or not. Search for "in fact" or other phrases, and you'll know for sure. Now, we better stop this (or continue it elsewhere, at least) before the owner of the talk page chases us away :P Orane (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... are we anywhere near any sort of conclusion? Should idioms be disntinguished from prepositional phrases in capitalization? Xnux the Echidna 13:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion I've reached is that, barring some authoritative source, (and answers.com be damned - I'll know "for sure" indeed...), there is no acid-test criterion for distinguishing idioms from non-idiomatic speech in every case. A phrasal verb, I can identify in the wild, but with idioms, there's a well-populated grey area. Therefore, it being impossible to make a well-defined rule, we should treat idioms couched as prepositional phrases int the same way we treat any prepositional phrase, and we should not capitalize the "in" of Dangerously in Love.

In order to be convinced otherwise, I would have to see (A) some kind of authoritative rule saying that idioms are given special treatment with respect to capitalization, and (B) a rule for determining when a phrase is an idiom. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My conclusion is that we have arrived at a point that was not a part of the initial discussion, and I take personal fault for this. And I say this because, somehow, we/I began to focus more on idioms rather than the particular part of speech of the words in the idiomatic phrase. My main reason for arguing for the capitalization of "in love" was never only because it was an idiom, but rather because it's use in the phrase was largely adjectival. We do not blindly capitalize every word in idioms. A song titled "Hell to Pay" would be capitalized as such, despite being an idiomatic phrase. I was arguing in favour of capitalizing two-worded adverbial/adjectivial phrases (in fact, in love) that would normally be seen as one entity. Despite being shorter than a sentence, a phrase still has to make sense gramatically, and I reiterate, an adverb (Dangerously) simply cannot modify a preposition (in) or a noun (love). Orane (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm... well, perhaps this is a case where a preposition can be capitalized in title case. Should I present this idea to WP:NC and see if it flies there? There's no guarantee it will convince them, but I'll finally be able to stop worrying about grammar for a while :/ Xnux the Echidna 20:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Every prepositional phrase functions as a adjective or an adverb; that's precisely what prepositional phrases do.

In the sentence, "I am in love," the prepositional phrase "in love" modifies the only word there is to modify, "I". It functions as an adjective, identifying a property possessed by the pronoun, "I". It's structurally identical to "I am hungry," or, "I am in Tennessee." In all three cases, the adjective - or phrase functioning as an adjective - modifies the pronoun "I".

In the title Dangerously in Love, the adverb, "dangerously," modifies the prepositional phrase, "in love". It answers the question, "how?" or, "to what extent?" are you in love? Nobody has suggested that an adverb would modify the preposition ("in") or the noun ("love") separately. They function as a unit - a prepositional phrase - that can play the role of an adjective or an adverb, and hence may be modified by an adverb.

If one were wanted in Tennessee, and likely to run into trouble, then one could be "Dangerously in Tennesseee," and that would be a perfectly correct example of an adverb modifying an honest-to-God prepositional phrase. It's structurally identical to "dangerously hungry," except the role of the adjective is filled - correctly - by a prepositional phrase.

The idea of capitalizing "in" makes no sense to me on any grammatical or stylistic level. I have yet to see any kind of citation of any authority that would sanction such a choice. I'm open to seeing one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet the saga continues! Sorry Xnux. GTBacchus, I disagree with your use and assessment of prepositional phrases. They may function as adjective and adverbs, but not in the manner you explained. A prepositional phrases answers questions such as where, who, when, which etc and this is what gives it it's adverbial quality. According to this source, "To find out if a prepositional phrase is functioning as an adverbial phrase, see if it answers one of these questions: “Where?” “When?” “In what manner?” “To what extent?”" and "To find out if a prepositional phrase is functioning as an adjectival phrase, see if it answers these questions: “Which one?” or “What kind?”". In the sentence "She sat by the ocean", "by the ocean" would be the prepositional phrase describing where she sat i.e, it modifies the verb "sit". Similarly, "The girl combed the beach for money", "for money" is the prepositional phrase, answering "why" the girl combed the beach. In both these sentences, "where" and "why" are adverbs. source 1, source 2.

"In love" answers none of these question. "In love" isn't doing the answering/modifying, as would normally be the case in prepositional phrases. It is the object that is being modified by the adverb "Dangerously". Also, to say "Dangerously in Tennessee" is fragmented and grammatically incorrect. Dangerously what in Tennessee? Dangerously fighting? Dangerously walking? Something is definitely missing. You could say "Dangerously in love in Tennessee," where the prepositional phrase "in Tennessee" modifies "in love" by telling where you are when you're in love.

Lastly, I point to you that despite prepositional phrases being adverbial or adjectival, they are still that: prepositions. But according to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=in%20love, and to a lesser extent, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_love, if you want to trust it, "in love" is strictly an adjective. Adjectives are capitalized in titles. Orane (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So... you say you disagree with me, and then you repeat back to me what I said. Prepositional phrases function as adjectives or adverbs, and thus may be modified by adverbs. The adverb "Dangerously" answers the question "to what extent?", modifying the adjectival phrase "in love". To what extent are you hungry - "I'm dangerously hungry". To what extent are you in love - "I'm dangerously in love."

I have a question. In the clause, "I am in Tennessee," what question does the phrase "in Tennessee" answer? Is it functioning as an adjective, or as an adverb?

Again you say that "in love" is an adjective. I say it's an adjectival phrase, which is not a disagreement. I say that it plays the same role as "in Tennessee," which is an adjectival prepositional phrase. They function as predicate adjectives following the linking verb "am". "I am hungry," "I am in love," "I am in Tennessee," "I am frustrated with this round-and-round conversation." If "in Tennessee" is not an adjectival prepositional phrase in the sentence "I am in Tennessee," modifying "I," then what is it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you said you needed proof, and when I gave you the proof (the explanation, plus the dictionary links stating the part of speech), you still aren't satisfied. Prepositional phrases are not located in dictionaries. The entry "in love" is found in a dictionary, under "adjective", not a "prepositional phrase with adjectival value". Big difference. And even if I were to agree that it is a a phrase (since it's two words), it's still adjectival (an adjective), which means it should be capitalized, just as how phrasal verbs, which contain prepositions, are capitalized. Orane (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, dude, maybe I wasn't satisfied with the proof because I don't see how it proves what you're saying. Does it make me unreasonable to disagree with how you're interpreting your sources?

Is anything listed in the dictionary under "prepositional phrase with adjectival value"? No. Therefore, pointing out that it's not listed that way does not mean that it isn't a prepositional phrase. It just means that the dictionary recognizes that it functions as an adjective. Is "under the gun" in the dictionary? Yes. "Under the weather"? Yes. "In hock"? Yes. "Over the hill"? "By the way"? "On one's game"? Yes, yes and yes. Are they not prepositional phrases? No, apparently "prepositional phrases aren't in dictionaries." Except for the scores of idiomatic ones that are.

You say that adjectival phrases should be capitalized, but not prepositional phrases that function as adjectives. What on Earth is the difference? A prepositional phrase playing the role of an adjective is an adjectival phrase.[1]

Tomorrow, I'll stroll over to the English department and ask some people there. I imagine they'll know something, or be able to point me to a truly authoritative source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference that I've been getting at is that, despite being two words, "in love" can function as a single semantic unit, like "in fact" etc, like most phrasal verbs. Prepositional phrases like "Under the weather" or "To Hell and Back", and the scores of others that you scour through the dictionary to find, cannot. Orane (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's scouring anything, I assure you. I sat on Google for 30 seconds to generate that list. You said, "Prepositional phrases are not located in dictionaries," using that "fact" to claim that "in love" is not a prepositional phrase. However, "under the weather" is a prepositional phrase, it is found in the dictionary, and it does function as one semantic unit. It means "sick," it's an idiom, it's a prepositional phrase that does not break into semantic parts, and it's in the dictionary.

As for "phrasal verbs," neither "in love," nor "in fact" is a phrasal verb. A phrasal verb is something like "spice up" or "look over," that actually functions as a verb. ("Herb spiced up the dish, while Betty looked over the plans.") There is no sentence in which the phrase "in love" acts as a verb. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, this isn't going anywhere. And secondly, I never said that "In love" or "in fact" were phrasal verbs. I stated that they were one semantic unit, just as how a phrasal verb (with a preposition) would be a single semantic unit, and would both be capitalized. Orane (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You never said "in love" is a phrasal verb? How about in your edit summaries here, here and here? The idiomatic prepositional phrase, "under the weather" is one semantic unit. Same with "in love" - it's an idiomatic, prepositional phrase the functions as one semantic unit. They're both idiomatic, prepositional phrases that are both listed in dictionaries because they both function as single semantic units. Just ask any grammar teacher. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So you went in my edit summary and dug up edits I made weeks upon weeks ago? I retracted that statement a long time ago to Xnux, even before you and I started talking; it was never a part of our discussion. Throughout our debate, I've been referring to the phrase as an adjective, so you mentioning the "phrasal verb" comment at this point baffles me. In any case, I really don't know how to argue this anymore dude. It's been great. All I can say is that I found two sources that list "in love" strictly as an adjective. Having "adjectival value" is, in my opinion, different from being the part of speech of an adjective. I can only work with what the dictionary gives me. But still, I don't want this to cause problems and for tempers to fly, since none of us will yield. Orane (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm down to stop arguing. I just... when you said you "never said" something... as soon as I was aware of the dispute, I looked at the article history, because... duh. That's what you do when you learn of a dispute. I sure as hell didn't inject the idea of "phrasal verb" into the current discussion. Scroll up; you brought it up, earlier today.

I try not to say I've "never said" something that I've ever said. Whatever though, I don't care. I'm not gonna judge you for it, but on the Wiki, if you say you've "never said" something that any fool can look up, then you'll be shown up for it. Again, whatever. I think of you as a good, intelligent, honest person. We all make mistakes.

Any source worth its salt will list any idomatic prepositional phrase that plays an adjectival role as an "adjective"; that will never make it not a prepositional phrase. Take it from someone who's spent a lot more years than you have studying and teaching English and other languages. It's ok to be young and to learn. In this case, you're mistaken. Don't sweat it. We've all been there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

UK sales

Its down as '2xPlatinum' in UK and then next to it it says 1,000,000+ sales... 2xPlatinum in UK is 600,000+ so the certification is wrong. I believe it ended up going around 5/6xPlatinum which would equal to around 1.5-1.8 Million copies in the UK. Wneedham02 (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

USA Today review

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. USA Today (Jones, Steve. D.06. June 24, 2003) review of Dangerously in Love (2003):

When you're as strongly identified with a group's sound as Destiny's Child's Beyonce Knowles is, it's tough making an album that stands apart from the band's work. But with her solo debut, Dangerously in Love ( * * * 1/2), Knowles succeeds by showing greater depth as a songwriter and broader range as a singer. She also collaborates with Luther Vandross and Missy Elliott, plus Outkast's Big Boi on the quirky Hip Hop Star, Sean Paul on infectious dancehall jam Baby Boy and Jay-Z on current smash Crazy in Love. While those songs show her versatility, it's the ones she does solo that really show off her voice. But the real gem is Be With You, on which the sexy, smoky-voiced Knowles grooves over Shuggie Otis' Strawberry Letter 23. When Destiny's Child regroups next year, the singers can't help but benefit from Knowles' broader horizons.

— Steve Jones

Dan56 (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post review

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. USA Today (Stewart, Allison. C.05. June 25, 2003) review of Dangerously in Love (2003):

You might have expected the first solo album from Beyonce Knowles, who has spent almost a decade as frontwoman of the agreeable moneymaking machine Destiny's Child, to be a bracing declaration of independence, as these things usually are. To make a solo debut that expresses less of one's personality than the average group album hardly seems worth the trouble. But Knowles, issuer of such indelible girl-power anthems as "Survivor" and "Bootylicious," seems to have done just that. "Dangerously in Love" is less a statement of purpose than a thoroughly pleasant, if oddly muted, sideways step.

Musically, "Dangerously in Love" feels like a busier, tarted-up Destiny's Child album. The three-part harmonies are mostly absent; the song structures are more intricate, or at least more complicated; and the trio's unadorned R&B is sweetened with Middle Eastern rhythms, guitars, reggae and several well-chosen samples. [Matthew Knowles]'s affection for old-school soul is evident in the number of Shuggie Otis references and the Stax-reminiscent opening track, "Crazy in Love." With its horns, harmonies, samples and Jay-Z guest rap, "Crazy in Love" has more going on in its first two minutes than most albums do in their entirety. It's so impressive, the album never quite recovers from it; everything that follows seems enervated in comparison.

The rest of "Dangerously in Love" offers more modest pleasures, falling into a familiar pattern of ballads and rapper-assisted club tracks. It's a testament to Beyonce's considerable charms that even the lesser songs here, the programmed, indistinctive add-a-diva tracks that could have easily featured, say, Jennifer Lopez (like the dance hall-inflected "Naughty Girl"), are rarely less than winning. Mid-tempo cuts "Me, Myself and I" and ode-to-virginity "Yes" ("The first time I said no / It's like I never said yes"), which sounds like a milder version of something TLC might have sung, offer flashes of the spirited, "Survivor"-era Beyonce. They give way to a middle section that's bogged down by the sluggish ballad "Speechless" and the Missy Elliott-assisted "Signs," a more or less straightforward recitation of astrological signs during which Knowles vainly attempts to rhyme "Sagittarius" and "Taurus." It's only when Jay-Z reappears for "That's How You Like It" that things perk up considerably.

"Dangerously in Love" is a perfectly likable album that, given the talent involved (including Sean Paul, Luther Vandross and OutKast's Big Boi), should have been a great one. Knowles co-wrote and co-produced most of the tracks here, and although she's to be applauded for her musical adventurism, she deserves better material. She's rightfully regarded as her generation's Diana Ross, only nicer and with better hair, but it's worthwhile to note that at a comparable point in her solo career, Ross was singing future classics like "Reach Out and Touch (Somebody's Hand)." It's doubtful she would have tolerated something like "Daddy," Knowles's closing ode to father/co-executive producer Matthew Knowles. Partly cloying, partly just yucky ("There's no one else like my daddy"), it's the worst blow to father-daughter relationships since "Butterfly Kisses."

— Allison Stewart

Dan56 (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

editing

I want to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerously_in_Love may I please edit?

Released

June 22, 2003

Recorded

2002—March 2003

Patchwerk Studios
(Atlanta, Georgia)
SugarHill Studios
(Houston, Texas)
South Beach Studios
(Miami, Florida)
Baseline Studios, SoHo Studios, Sony Music Studios
(New York City, New York)
COE.BE.3 Studios
(Stone Mountain, Georgia)

Genre

R&B, soul, funk

I want to add funk to the genres 124.149.117.224 (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Bro! It's not a funk album. And take heed to the genre warnings at your talk page, which should tell you how to go about making a constructive genre change. Dan56 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The writing credits should not be changed. They are under her first and last name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.12.19.65 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The writing credits are under her full name. It should stay like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.12.19.65 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dangerously in Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120225125755/http://www.nvpi.nl/nvpi/pagina.asp?pagkey=61112&documentid=1235664&zoekform=60463&formposted=yes to http://www.nvpi.nl/nvpi/pagina.asp?pagkey=61112&documentid=1235664&zoekform=60463&formposted=yes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Dangerously in Love. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/655SozOGZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtv.com%2Fbands%2Fb%2Fbeyonce%2Fnews_feature_062703%2Findex2.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/bands/b/beyonce/news_feature_062703/index2.jhtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://irish-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Beyonc%E9
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=31267
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blender.com/guide/new/52345/dangerously-in-love.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockhall.com/pressroom/definitive-200
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706101851/http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-100-albums-2004.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-100-albums-2004.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rapfix.mtv.com/2011/04/05/jay-z-and-beyonce-celebrate-three-years-of-wedded-bliss/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223051201/http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-100-albums-2003.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-100-albums-2003.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313070738/http://dutchcharts.nl/jaaroverzichten.asp?year=2003&cat=a to http://dutchcharts.nl/jaaroverzichten.asp?year=2003&cat=a
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915190126/http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp to http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227002926/http://www.swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=2003 to http://swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=2003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081117003117/http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/top50-2003.pdf to http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/top50-2003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151019030702/http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2004&cat=a to http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2004&cat=a
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823020914/http://dutchcharts.nl/jaaroverzichten.asp?year=2004&cat=a to http://dutchcharts.nl/jaaroverzichten.asp?year=2004&cat=a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dangerously in Love. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421041611/http://www.mtv.com/bands/b/beyonce/news_feature_062703/ to http://www.mtv.com/bands/b/beyonce/news_feature_062703/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtv.com/bands/b/beyonce/news_feature_062703/index2.jhtml

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) 22:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dangerously in Love. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtv.com/bands/b/beyonce/news_feature_062703/index2.jhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527104200/http://music.ign.com/articles/436/436601p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/436/436601p1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blender.com/guide/new/52345/dangerously-in-love.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rapfix.mtv.com/2011/04/05/jay-z-and-beyonce-celebrate-three-years-of-wedded-bliss/

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) 02:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)