Talk:Hold It Against Me/Archive 1

Archive 1

Music video

I remember reading or watching an interview somewhere about details on the music video, but now I forgot where it was. :( Can anyone help? --Cprice1000talk2me 04:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Seacrest commented on it on his website, but "spectacular" is really not a description. Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it was something about rehearsals for it. --Cprice1000talk2me 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

He also said Britney's been rehearsing "for a month", but that could mean anything. Information about the auditions is in the article. Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh.... OK :) --Cprice1000talk2me 04:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Duration

The duration of the song isn't 3:49, it is 3:50!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obliteration69 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out. Novice7 | Talk 06:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Itunes, the Itunes media player, Zune player, Windows Media Player all list it at 3:49. --Shadow (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, sorry.. It is 3:49. I checked iTunes. Novice7 | Talk 12:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

however when you purchase the song and its in your play list, it is listed as 3:50? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.106.60 (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

per the reliable sources it doesn't really matter. we go by what the sources say. 1 second makes no difference. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

iTunes has been known to have their lengths a bit off anyway. It might be listed as one length before you buy it, but when it downloads, it loses 5 seconds. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

this section needs pruning (its too big)... individual quotes need slimming. Currently its a WP:QUOTEFARM. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing too. It's too long. Novice7 | Talk 12:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll start working on it right away. Xwomanizerx (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to say that. --Cprice1000talk2me 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks better now. Xwomanizerx (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph is good... the second is still a quote farm... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This section is still much bigger than it needs to be. Xamkou (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh gimme a break, the critical reception section in GAs and several FAs such as 4 Minutes (Madonna song) are much bigger. Xwomanizerx (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not a go at you its a general observation. While the critical reception of those songs are longer they have been out a lot longer. There will only be more reviews to come for this song. Its the quote farm thing that is most an issue. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Genres

Dubstep to be removed from the genres. A 'dubstep-influenced' breakdown does not make a song dubstep! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Xwomanizerx (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree --Cprice1000talk2me 14:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Equally electropop needs to be removed. Bill Lamb from About.com says The opening verse and chorus structure is catchy and then the bridge takes off in electropop glory.. To use that to call the whole song electropop is WP:OR. See Talk:What's My Name? (Rihanna song) for a similar genre discussion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So dance-pop should be the only genre listed? Xwomanizerx (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is an explicit mention of another genre ... then yes. If the words "style", "influence", "like" etc. are used in the review or if it says "xzy beat", "xyz element" or "xyz melody" then such comments do not classify the song in that genre. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In a review article I read, the author said the song was also Europop, and the review is from a reliable wesite (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jan/13/britney-review-hold-against-me), so Europop should be added to the list of genres. Gaga690

New info

[1] I don't know where this would go, or if it would even work. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added the info about the radio spins at least. There was already info previously there on it, but it was taken out without explanation. Not sure how to fit in the other info. Greekboy (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll add the information properly. Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you stop doing full reverts? In the process you are taking out perfectly sourced information. If you have an issues with edits, take them out manually. Fully reverting only causes trouble. Greekboy (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

US airplay release date

Who is to say the site used for the January 18th add date is reliable? The song was released early on January 10, 2010 to radio stations. That is the add date. It would be a different story if it was released as a digital download first, with radio stations playing it at their discretion. But the labels specifically sent the song out for radio airplay (thus radio add) early. This is well documented through tweets and updates from various radio stations. Greekboy (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're getting release dates and add dates confused. A radio add date is the LEGAL date that the label makes a song available. Any station has the choice to add the song from that date onwards, to its playlists. However its well documented that due to the demo leaking, the label sent the song to popular radio stations. Stations can play a song by picking it up from a label/the internet before hand. However the mainstream radio add date stands at the 18 of Jan. See the release section where I'd added January 10 as the premier date. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the section looks much better now and properly represents the situation. Thanks for the improvements.Greekboy (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Writing credits

The opening paragraph state the song was written and produced by Dr. Luke and Max Martin. That is misleading. There were 4 people involved in the writing process, and just mentioning all four in the infobox but only the most famous ones in the opener is wrong. Someone please amend the sentence. Thanks Dollvalley (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Radio premiere

Gives date of January 10th and region as United States though had its radio premiere worldwide on January 10th, not just the US. Slowpoke (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The international radio adds are not listed since there's never sources for them. Xwomanizerx (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Netherlands should be included in this list. The releasedate is January 11. (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

add review

{{editsemiprotected}} in the critical reception section, add this review from Bill Lamb form [[[About.com]]:

Bill Lamb from About.com praised the song, stating that "Britney Spears pulled her music into the present with this roaring electronic dance music hit that incorporates elements of dubstep into the mix. She worked once again with Max Martin and Dr. Luke, but this is no retread. It is smart, sexy, and raw contemporary pop".

There's already a review by Bill Lamb on the section. Xwomanizerx (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done:I concur with Xwomanizerx, and would also add that there is no need for such an extensive quote in a critical reception section that's already extremely long. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

References

A huge chunk of the references are for the exact same website. I would suggest grouping references. 76.121.138.201 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What? Xwomanizerx (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe 76... is referring to the iTunes links. Actually, it is my opinion that those should all be removed, since they require iTunes to be viewed and they border on being direct commercial promotion for Apple. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Only two of the iTunes Store links require iTunes. Normally, links to products in the iTunes Store are viewable online; the ones that say one needs iTunes means the link is dead. And since the single is only being sold through the iTunes Store, what other source can we use? Yves (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That isn't always true for the viewing online. For instance, the Greek store for some reason will not allow online viewing, only in-iTunes viewing. Also, the links cannot be grouped because each is unique to the specific country's store. Grk1011 (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

iTunes links

Shouldn't only the main markets be listed? It's the first page I've seen where every country it was released is noted. The table is definitely too long. Xwomanizerx (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's long. But how to trim it? Btw, its not only on this article. Novice7 | Talk 08:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel like on an album's page it's understandable, but on a single's? If no one else opposes I'll leave only the bigger markets. Xwomanizerx (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe remove Finland, Greece, Mexico, Portugal, and Germany CD single? Novice7 | Talk 08:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Germany is an important market, so I won't remove that. Xwomanizerx (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove releases. Who are we to decide what is and isn't a larger market? Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it's obvious? The markets I left are the ones used in discography articles. Plus, it looks ridiculous, especially since it was released on the same day in most countries. If you can find any song article that's GA or FA and has such a long list of release dates I won't revert it. Xwomanizerx (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to find a GA or FA so that you are satisfied, I'm only concerned about this page and how it conforms to the relevant guidelines. Other than your personal belief that there are too many dates and countries shown, there is no reason to remove what you don't consider large markets. I won't revert your removal of sourced content if you explain which Wikipedia policy allows you to pick which countries get their release dates shown and which ones are too insignificant to matter. Grk1011 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that per Grk's comments about this not being supported by policy all of the current release dates are left. In the future if different release formats appear e.g. EPs, remix bundles etc. and the situation becomes more complex then it can be revisited. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bellamy Brothers

I think the article needs to state that these two brothers did not coin the phrase in the first place, or be removed completely. This article talks about how the Brothers took the phrase from Groucho Marx. To me it is quite obvious that they did this just for publicity. http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/ourcountry/90036/does-britneys-hold-it-against-me-rip-off-the-bellamy-brothers/ Filmation (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

They don't claim to to have written the line, in the source given they're merely saying that Britney's song rips off a song they performed/released. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

#1 in 17 countries

Why isn't it mentioned that she reached #1 on iTunes in 17 countries? http://toyaz-world.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/224139711.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.163.21 (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Because iTunes only matters to people who use iTunes. It's not an official sales calculation - sales on iTunes do not reflect all sales/airplay. 68.40.239.13 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:BADCHARTS. Xwomanizerx (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but by now the single was released only on iTunes, meaning that all chart positions on the official charts reflect iTunes positions (sales). I mean if, for example, the single wouldn't have been #1 on Finland's iTunes for 2 days it wouldn't debut as high as #11 on the official singles chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.129.193.31 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Most charts take into account airplay (and other factors like spins) in addition to sales, so iTunes Store "positions" can't be used. Yves (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Listing iTunes chart positions is a violation of our long-standing policy against single network/retailer charts per WP:Record charts. Aside from potential legal issues, Yves is right. Many singles charts also account for airplay thus listing on single charts as opposed to iTunes is more accurate, reliable and verifiable. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the rules on Wikipedia say so, then that's the way it should be I guess. But still, news about her iTunes #1's can be found on her official web page. Everything that's official should be mentioned on Wikipedia. That's just an IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.129.193.31 (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also iTunes charts doesn't reflect the overall popularity of a song. A song can chart at #1 on iTunes, and then not even reach the top 10 on the official sales/airplay chart. But don't worry, "Hold It Against Me" will probably chart at #1 in many of those 17 countries.--z33k (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation template

Am I the only one who thinks it's completely unnecessary? I agree in cases such as Piece of Me/Pieces of Me, but the name of the other song is longer. Xwomanizerx (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I support adding them. People might search on Wiki, when they have like just two or three sentences. We don't want them to get confused. Do we? Novice7 | Talk 16:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Official remix

Does there need to be a section about the official remix, featuring Flo Rida? 81.100.21.62 (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Remix is not official. Flo Rida jumped on the track itself. It wasn't commissioned. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Release history idea...

Can I recommend some intelligent editing here and recommend that instead of listing 17 separate listings saying the song was released in 17 countries on January 11, 2010 can we not just list worldwide. The reason I'm saying this is it is effectively the same release worldwide, by date and by format. There are likely to be remix EPs and other forms of release later on. And then obviously list things like Germany and the UK separately. Thus it would look something like this:

Region	Date	Format	Label
United States	January 10, 2011	Radio premiere	Jive Records
Worldwide	January 11, 2011	Digital download — iTunes
United States	January 18, 2011	Mainstream airplay
United Kingdom	January 17, 2011	Digital download	RCA Records
Germany	February 25, 2011	CD single	Jive Records

References

The only problem is that it is grossly misleading and wrong. The song is not available in every country on the planet. Grk1011 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to change the world worldwide to something else appropriate but to be fair it is/has been in the biggest markets. Bar the UK and Germany which are both in the top five biggest music markets, it had mainly be released elsewhere. It seems grossly detailed to list every single country despite it being a near global release. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason why each market can't be listed individually. The section being too detailed, which is an editor's pov, is better than it being incorrect due to generalizations. Grk1011 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it has had a release to most iTunes stores and we don't need to mention every little country. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm more preparing for the inevitable release of remixes, EPs and CDs that are likely to follow. Bare that in mind. And actually a generalization based on the the biggest music markets in the world is hardly a generalization. its more of an average. Even a FA which I have no relation to like 4 Minutes (Madonna song) doesn't list so many release dates even though it has an extensive list of charts. You're giving undue importance to the release history when it simply isn't required. Other users expressed concern about this too. The whole idea is to give an impression of when the song was released. Obviously by clicking on the reference it will list all 17/18 iTunes references as listed. There are over 200 countries in the world you cant possibly be suggesting that you cannot use the word worldwide unless all 200 individual countries are mentioned... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for making the table easier to read and it could make sense to have the individual countries listed below as you have shown, however, "worldwide" is the last word I would use to describe the releases on iTunes. Grk1011 (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well what word would you like to use instead then? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what could be done, but I do agree that it seems like a different approach could be used than this tedious work with all the countries' releases. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 02:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What about "Most of World"? or is that too cheesy? I still don't think "Worldwide" would be that much of an issue since the biggest music markets are mentioned and those which have a different date are mentioned separately (Germany and UK). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I don't understand why you feel its right to randomly designate "major markets". What are the criteria for a country to be considered one? I think the best solution in this particular case would be to not say country and list it as something like "iTunes Music Stores". This would only work in this case since the release is specific to iTunes and is in almost all stores on iTunes. I can only see one problem in that the German and UK itunes stores don't have it, but it's something to think about. Grk1011 (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well to be fair not every country has an active iTunes store anyway. It would work because the German release is not specific to iTunes (iTunes dont sell CDs) and equally we can change UK to UK iTunes. its not randomly designating major markets. Its basing markets on their share of worldwide music sales. There is a page on wikipedia about it and music market discrimination (as you refer to it) is already in use at discographies to limit to the ten most significant music markets. Remember WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What is limited to ten on discographies? I'd like to also point out the fact that a discography is an overview while the article is supposed to go into detail about the release. Grk1011 (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You must be fair to every country. This is an encyclopedia, the information has to be given somewhere. Generalizing the release as worldwide or Europe, etc. is just plain misleading. Just because other articles don't list countries individually doesn't mean that it is wrong. Perhaps those GA's should go up for re-assessment as I have noticed other problems with some of them as well. I don't see what the issue of listing individual countries is. It is not like the page is anywhere near close to going over page length limits. Who are we to judge which country "makes the cut"? Using market shares to limit countries on this page is just plain old original research. That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with listing something like "iTunes worldwide" and including a note of some sort. But that could potentially open the door to adding other digital platform addition dates to the table. This iTunes exclusive business is a difficult situation. Greekboy (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Singles Chart

HIAM debuted at #6 in Spain (Promusicae official Top Singles Chart) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.52.172 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! A reliable source is needed for chart positions, though. Currently, Hung Medien doesn't show anything. Yves (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken Records (until now)

- Biggest first day at the radio ever; over 700 spins across all formats. (previous holder, Mariah Carey - Touch My Body) - Biggest first seven days at top 40 ever, over 4400 spins. (previous holder, Eminem - Just Lose It) - Biggest published weekly bullet at top 40 ever, +4400. (previous holder, Eminem - Just Lose It) - Biggest first week audience impression on top 40 ever, (previous holder, Eminem - Just Lose It) - Biggest single day spin increase on top 40 ever, broke this twice on its 5th day (732) and 6th day (779) - The 2nd highest debut ever on Billboard Pop Songs, at #16 tied with Madonna's Frozen, only behind Mariah Carey's Dreamlover (#12) - Her highest debut on Hot 100 Airplay, on #23, tied with Mariah's Touch My Body,one of the highest debuts on Hot 100 Airplay. - The 2nd fastest rising ever to #1 US itunes with 8 hours (the record: Taylor Swift- Today Was A Fairytale, with 5 hours, but HIAM was released at midnight so her record is more impressive than Taylor's!) - Biggest first week digital single sales by a female artist ever,411k, (previous holder, Taylor Swift - Today Was A Fairytale, 325k) - The 4th biggest first week digital single salesof all time - The 18th song in history to debut at #1 Hot 100 - The 2nd artist after Mariah Carey to score more than 1 #1 debuts - The 2nd artist after Mariah Carey to score 2 consecutive #1 debuts - The 2nd artist (after Usher) and the first female artist to score at least 1 #1 in 90s, 00s, and 10s - Only the 5th female artist (After Barbara Streisand, Cher, Madonna and Janet Jackson) and the 10th artist overall, to score at least 1 #1 in 3 different decades - The youngest artist ever to score at least 1 #1 in 3 different decades —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.51.144 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Source? Xwomanizerx (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess Billboard report is wrong. Celine Dion has two #1 debuts on Hot 100 ("My Heart Will Go On" and "I'm Your Angel"), so she's certainly the second artist to score multiple #1 debuts, and Britney is the third. What do you think guys?? Bluesatellite (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. You're right. Billboard makes mistakes sometimes. So, its Mariah, Celine and then Britney. And, Britney is the third artist with more than one summit debuts. Let me try to find another source for this. Novice7 | Talk 10:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it would be true -> "as the second artist to score two consecutive number-one debuts, behind Mariah Carey", because "I'm Your Angel" was not released after "My Heart Will Go On". Bluesatellite (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't see that. How dumb am I?? Novice7 | Talk 11:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been known that BB doesnot count "I'm Your Angel" as a #1 debut because of a stupid rule chaneg at their end. "I'm Your Angel" was an airplay only single at that time, and the week it debuted at #1, BB changed their previous rules to allow non-released singles to chart. So, although Celine actualy has two #1 debuts, BB credits her with one,since "I'm Your Angel" had already cfharted on the Hot 100 Airplay the weeks before. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(→) Oh! Now I see. Thank you for explaining. Novice7 | Talk 16:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold It Against Me Charts

• Finland (Suomen virallinen lista) - #1 - http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/singlet/2011/3
• Denmark (TracklistenTrack Top 40) - #1 - http://www.hitlisterne.dk/default.asp?list=t40

South Korea International Chart (MNET) - #1 - http://music.mnet.com/Chart/Chart_Genre.asp?GSCode=POP&DateType=W&ListType=0

• South Korea International Chart (Gaon Chart) - #3 - http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/total/list.gaon
• South Korea Overall Chart (Gaon Chart) - #69 - http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/total/list.gaon

--Df.dann (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE

Reference corrected

• South Korea International Chart (Gaon Chart) - #3 - http://www.gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/total/list.gaon?nationGbn=E

--Df.dann (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE

• Brasil Hot 100 - #22 - http://www.hot100brasil.com/chtsinglesb.html

--Df.dann (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Added South Korea overall chart. Others are not needed. Hot100Brasil is a WP:BADCHART. Novice7 | Talk 04:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Chart performance/Airplay???

Promotional claims can't be sourced in any manner by/to/from the person they promote. Its an inherrent conflict of interest. The source is not from BDS or mediabase, it's Britney's website, i think it should be removed.222.252.115.48 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's now sourced by the New York Post. Xwomanizerx (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I changed the source to NY Post. Novice7 | Talk 07:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

-- It's #11 in the official singles chart in Finland - http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/singlet/2011/2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.29.61.178 (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Novice7 | Talk 15:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

1. 1 in the offical singles chart in Finland - http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/singlet/2011/3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Df.dann (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's #6 in the official Irish singles chart - http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.29.61.178 (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you again. Novice7 | Talk 12:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ultratop/ultratip/whatever is not a minor chart in Belgium, it's the most official one, so you should mention her (great) performance in that country too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.74.209 (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

-It's #2 in the official singles charts in Norway - http://lista.vg.no/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.224.176 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. It doesn't say anything about HIAM. Novice7 | Talk 15:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

-No I saw that. Sorry. Give it a few hours and it'll be there. It's official in the papers, the site just needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.224.176 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Norway Singles Top 20 - #2, http://acharts.us/norway_singles_top_20 - Dany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.29.61.178 (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Already added. Novice7 | Talk 12:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside of the United States, the single debuted at Number One in nineteen other countries including Australia, Belgium, Japan, Canada, Switzerland, France, Ireland and more. The iconic superstar is the first artist to simultaneously commercially release her single as the song was made available to radio stations worldwide. The UK released the single this week, just as the popular Britney/Brittany Season two GLEE episode featuring five Britney songs airs in the U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xgeorgexts (talk • contribs) 12:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're mentioning the iTunes chart. We cannot add that due to it being a bad chart. Thank you. Novice7 | Talk 12:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The claims about pop radio airplay in the chart performance section are not accurate. I corrected them, but someone reverted my corrections, so they are inaccurate again. The section says that the song "set the record for most radio plays in one day in the United States, registering 619 plays on Mediabase and 595 plays on Nielsen Broadcast Data." While I don't dispute the number of plays, 600 spins is not a record for daily plays in the U.S. It's not even close. The top 3 tracks at pop radio are currently getting about 13,000 spins per week, which is an average of over 1,800 plays per day. That's three times more than the claim that 600 spins is a record. Second, the source indicated includes the number of spins but does not make the claim that it is a daily record, so even if this claim were true (which it's not), it has not been sourced.

Next, the section claims that the song "also broke Mediabase's one week play's record, with 3,866 spins." That's not what the source says or even means. I corrected this statement to make it accurate, but it was also reverted. The source is saying that the song broke the record for the largest increase in spins during one week (it calls it "spincrease"), meaning that the song was played 3,866 times more this week than it was played last week. That's quite a feat. However, to claim that just the number of spins itself is a record is not accurate. As I stated earlier, the top 3 songs are getting 13,000 spins per week--almost 10,000 more spins than this--in fact every song in the top 20 this week received more than 4,000 spins. I'll make these edits again and I hope they stand since they are correct.Ww adh77 (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a correct MTV link for the first claim. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you added better support, however, as the new source indicates, it's the "first day" record that was broken, not the "one day" record. As I pointed out previously, there are many many songs that get way more than 600 spins per day, so clearly Britney's 595 to 619 spins is not a "one day" record. Bruno Mars' "Grenade," for example, is averaging about 1,800 spins per day at present.Ww adh77 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's #15 in Slovakia (IFPI) http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparadask/index.php?hitp=R&rubrika=1218 And It's #29 in the Czech Republic (IFPI) http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparada/index.php?hitp=R Dany, 15:48, 25 January 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.29.61.178 (talk)

 Done Novice7 | Talk 16:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Composition/Reception?

Just food for thought, but is it just me, or is the their is a lot of information in the critical reception better suited for the composition? The similar AC/DC riff, Euro-techno groove statement, comparison to Rihanna, contemporary radio sound with "sing-songy" chorus, double entendre lyrics, all of these among others. Just sayin'. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 02:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are. I recommend splitting composition section as done at When Love Takes Over. There's enough information about the lyrics and music for sub sections. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's break it down. The information in the composition section is basically what I could find that was repeated or was much more of a consensus among several reviewers, like the Cutting Crew reference and other things. But for example, the AC/DC reference has only been mentioned by Rob Sheffield, and I know this is a bit of original research on my part, but I listened to the song and couldn't find it similar. However, if another critic finds the same comparison I won't be opposed to adding it. I think it's much more the opinion of the reviewers. Same with the Rihanna, Black Eyed Peas, and Katy Perry comparisons; critics are just naming artists with club-friendly songs. And I disagree about splitting the composition section for now. I think the music part is a little big long, but a lyrics subsection will seem very short in comparison. Xwomanizerx (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hence you can speak of lyrics/vocals/comparisons in one section and music in the other. Its something to consider. In general that's how composition sections are written... you take quotes from each review so long as they coherently fit together. E.g. "a number of critics compared the song to others by Rihanna, Black Eyed Peas and Katy Perry"... etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Echoing, what Lil said, this is generally how FA comps are composed. Anyway, if you claim this is burgeoning on OR just because only one person said it, but its not reception either. I would a similar AC/DC riff or comparing the song to Rihanna be critical reception? Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 16:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I also support adding them to the Composition. But, the section is already full, so we might want to strip them down. Also, should Rihanna's Umbrella comparison be included on composition? There is not much in depth analysis. Would readers be able to compare? Novice7 | Talk 16:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Right now, the sections meet guidelines. In "4 Minutes", references to the work of Michael Jackson,Nelly Furtado, radio play and the song's hook are in the critical reception section. In "City of Blinding Lights", another FA, the composition section is quite long and has no subsections. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a subtle difference between the two that you guys should understand I believe. If a reviewer is saying "The dubstep in "Hold It Against Me" is joyous and makes it her most interesting single..." --> This is a crtical review of the song. If in the same review the reviewer says "The dubstep in HIAM creates a breakdown before the chorus, over whcih Spears utters the final lines..." --> This is a description, hence goes in to the composition section. So, as you can see, be careful what you put and where. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so talking about how the song stands against past Britney singles such as "Toxic", and is reception. But pulling some things from the current reception, such Rolling Stone just compared the song's riff to AC/DC, Digital Spy just compared it to Rihanna's "Only Girl", and a reviewer was just ambivalent in noting that the song's chorus referenced her bubblegum pop past. In the three of these actual statements, the reviewers do not compliment or disapprove of the similarities, just noting them. Therefore wouldn't that be composition? Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is responsible for the reworking of the composition and critical reception sections, but it is much, much better now. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 15:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Finland and Denmark #1

Finland: http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/singlet/2011/3 Denmark: http://www.hitlisterne.dk/default.asp?w=2&y=2011&list=t40

Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

German release

The German release is February 18, 2011 not February 25, 2011... source Please change! --79.216.196.84 (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Music Video Reception

The first review for the Hold It Against Me video has arrived. But is not good, the full article by Entertainment Weekly can be find in the following direction: http://music-mix.ew.com/2011/02/17/britney-spears-hold-it-against-me-video-premiere/ --West231 (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Added. Xwomanizerx (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Music Video Premise

The Music Video section of this article has notes of the production, promotion, and reception... It does not, however, have a summation of the actual video. I don't really feel like watching the video in close detail, so someone else do it? --Arathun (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Working on it. Xwomanizerx (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 95.63.162.234, 30 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

95.63.162.234 (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)"Hold it against me" is in the number 14 in Brazil and in the number 7 in Israel

Source? --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 15:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As above. If you have a source, you can make a new edit request. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold It Against Me hits number one on US Hot Club Play http://www.billboard.com/column/chartbeat#/column/chartbeat/chart-highlights-dance-club-play-latin-songs-1005061242.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.147.18 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

clean -up on music video aisle

There are some serious fancrufty issues. Rather than weild an axe i thought I would list my concerns here first.

1. The development and release section is too big and contains to much cruft/triva.
2. e.g. "On January 22, 2011, Spears said about the video through her Twitter account, "Day 1 of the HIAM shoot with Jonas Åkerlund. Such an incredible experience. I think this will be one of the best videos I have ever done." The following day, she tweeted a low resolution picture of her from the video, where she is looking over her shoulder on a red outfit, surrounded by a wreath of microphones" is all unrequired. It could be summarised by saying Spears tweeted during the first day of the shoot to say how amazing the experience was. She also uploaded a low resolution picture from the video, where she is looking over her shoulder on a red outfit, surrounded by a wreath of microphones.
3. "On February 2, 2011, accusations came from TMZ.com that Jonas had decided to use a dance double for Spears when it seemed like she had not rehearsed her moves enough. Both her representatives and the director denied the rumors, with Jonas commenting, "[Britney's] been great throughout the entire process. [...] I've been around long enough to know when an artist gives it their all, and to me it doesn't get better than this. This video is gonna be fucking awesome! It's all Britney." is reception not background...

How is it reception? It's a comment from the director and the video wasn't even out... Xwomanizerx (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1. The entire next paragraph is almost a visual description of the video.
2. The information would better be presented in the following format:
   • Background - filming date, producer, teasers etc.
   • Concept - information about the various concepts
     • I don't understand what 'concepts' you're talking about. Xwomanizerx (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
       • Well the background currently contains information like "The music video was described by an on-set source as "a 21-century 'Rocky Horror,' space age fantasia of dance."[56] On January 28, 2011, Friedman told MTV News that the video included ten male dancers, and that Spears would be playing different roles" this is all related to the concept of the video. ... or development as you've called it but it should be separated from the other information in the section. Currently the music video section is a tangled mess of information. As a viewer if i wanted to know the overall theme/concept of the video there is no section where this information is contained. equally the development section contains lots of random trivia. See When Love Takes Over, 4 Minutes (Madonna song) etc. as an example of a GA and FA where the music video sections better portray information and/or have a better layout. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
   • Synopsis - a concise concept using the styling information about when/where Spears wears the various endorsements etc. The third paragraph from the background and development section could be better worked in here. etc.

— Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So I removed all the unnecessary information such as the speculation about the video and the little details. I think it looks good now. Alejandro (song) has a similar background section. Xwomanizerx (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the section looks pretty good. Candyo32 15:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 95.63.162.234, 9 March 2011

{{subst:edit semi-protected}} Britney in France is the position 31 believe me!

95.63.162.234 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Yves (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind; it's in the source, which would have been helpful to mention. But it's Done now. Yves (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 196.38.131.69, 11 March 2011

{{subst:edit semi-protected}} Hey

Could you add the Chart performace for South Africa to your list under "Charts"

SOUTH AFRICA [5fm TOP40] Peak position is 1. HOLD IT AGAINST ME peak position is No. 1 in South Africa

This is the number one music chart in South Africa. more information on http://www.5fm.co.za/charts/5fm-top-40

Charts are measured differently in SA compared to UK and US and EU. SA doesnt have a "billboard" like US. 5fm is the biggest radio channel, national across the country and is official with a TOP40 chart show. it should be taken into consideration as a chart equivalent in showing how the song is performing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.233.146 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

196.38.131.69 (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but it seems like a radio chart. Radio charts are not acceptable. Novice7 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 41.215.233.146, 12 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} This is some motivation for the use of the 5fm chart performance as an equivalent chart measurement as SA does not have an official Billboard system like the US/UK

Charts are measured differently in SA compared to UK and US and EU. SA doesnt have a "billboard" like US. 5fm is the biggest radio channel, national across the country and is official with a TOP40 chart show. it should be taken into consideration as a chart equivalent in showing how the song is performing

Below is the original request

Could you add the Chart performace for South Africa to your list under "Charts"

SOUTH AFRICA [5fm TOP40] Peak position is 1. HOLD IT AGAINST ME peak position is No. 1 in South Africa

This is the number one music chart in South Africa. more information on http://www.5fm.co.za/charts/5fm-top-40

41.215.233.146 (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Denied This is a single network chart, and single network/vendor charts aren't included in the chart table. It's not just South Africa: it's iTunes, Amazon, a handful of Latin American countries, Israel, Aruba, Curacao, and probably a dozen others.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not N. 1 in South Korea

The song wasnt number 1 in South Korea, because the link used in the article is for the international chart, not the one wikipedia uses (the wich contains local and international singles). The same issue ocurred with Born This Way, you can see the talk.

I agree, hiam peaked at number 1 in the international chart, but at 73 in the official chart. born this way has had similar problems, it peaked at number 1 in the international chart, and at 25 in the official chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.164.201 (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

will someone please fix this problem? hold it against me should be at #73 in the official chart of south korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkidfromma (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)