Jump to content

Talk:Gimme More

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.117.246.215 (talk) at 21:32, 11 September 2007 (→Do we need an entire page of information on the VMA performance?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSongs Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Cover

any source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak3m (talk • contribs) 10:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no available yet. dont rush. BritandBeyonce 10:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thats what im saying —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.36.193 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking mediabase records

"MediaBase.com, which records airtime plays, is reporting that "Gimme More" has already reached #80 in spins in the U.S. It hasn't even been 24 hours! This makes it the fastest charting song in that amount of time, ever. "

Should we add this to the article? I think it's relative to the article. It is the fatest growing song according to Mediabase in a twenty four hour period ever and they have been doing this for nearly 20 years (they were established in 1987) Skinwalker03 19:54, 31 August 2007

Citation?--Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discuss•edits) 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eminem holds that record. 68.82.82.248 02:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add it yourself and observe how the community would treat your edit.--Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discuss•edits) 22:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... I hope you two are not fighting. Regarding the Mediabase records, I am about to delete them; its movement through the Mediabase will be reflected in the Billboard charts. Any objections before I do delete them? Bull Borgnine 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T.I. remix

There's an official remix with T.I. should it be added as well. Under remixes'? PerezHilton leaked this one as well on his siteSkinwalker03 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That remix isn't official, so no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.207.242 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be added, as it isnt official its only fan made, yet people carry on adding it which is just stupid.--Jak3m 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make the article less cluttered...

I added a reaction title to the page. It was starting to look jumbled and I simply wanted to organize the article if it's a problem please post hereSkinwalker03 02:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we semi-protect this? So many content considered as vandalism per Wiki guidelines. BritandBeyonce 09:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fully protected... like her fifth album's article. This way people will stop adding some useless information which still gets through even if it's semi protected. [As well as vandalism]. But I fear by doing this the article will completely stop growing in valuable information, so I guess it's OK to keep it semi-protected, just for now. XD Bull Borgnine 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Thanks to someone who semi-protected this page. We cannot actually fully-protect this article since it's only a newly created and should be expanded. With regards to vandalism, at least, we can identify who did it unlike users who are not signed in or established users, it's hard to control. BritandBeyonce 07:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding unofficial covers.

please, i mean whats the point? to show off your photoshop skills? haha--Jak3m 21:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did the song Chart on Billboard Hot 100 Airplay?

Anyone who has a billboard subscription did it chart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinwalker03 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is being reported it placed Bubbling Under 100 at 109. Interesting fact: Do Somethin' (released in 2005) reached #100 without any official single release to stores. Just based on downloads!75.57.166.22 04:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That song, had downloads to help it, so far Gimme more, has none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.218.130 (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be objective here

And not put meltdown in the article please? Skinwalker03 03:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbling Under

I'm not entirely sure that's how the system works, but to my understanding it placed number 9 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100, not 109. 109 would mean it was number 209 on the overall chart. Additionally, not that it really has anything to do with the topic at hand, but "125 on the Hot 100" makes absolutely no sense, so let's try to avoid that, too. Phoenix1304 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect about that, Phoenix. "Bubbling under" is under the top 100 - thus, #9 on the B.U. chart would mean #109. PatrickJ83 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's right, 9. BritandBeyonce 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blender Review

4 stars, here: http://www.blender.com/news/comments.aspx?article=9775 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryandombal (talk • contribs) 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please edit the bit about the VMA performance?

It's really horrendous. Somebody with a grasp of grammar and syntax, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.207.242 (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section actually was compromised more on weasel words and is not really an encyclopedic thing. BritandBeyonce 11:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add more infor to the entry to "Gimme More" but it was locked in Wikipedia, but apparently according to US Magazine (http://usmagazine.com/britney_spears_39) a source tells that Spears was spotted "crying badly [backstage]. She's devastated. She was really nervous and knwo she screwed up." Britney may have know how horrible her performance when a VMA insider said Spears fired her hairstylist right before performing which would explain her horrendous hair. Yet though many viewers have little sympathy for Spears since she was spotted partying 3 nights in a row (until the early morning) before her performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.129 (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many fan blog's have stated that MTV decided to axe her performance involving Criss Angel as the Palm Casino Hotel's insurance would not cover the act they wanted to perform. Britney was told to change her performance and had a short space of time to rehearse it.

(http://www.popcrunch.com/mtv-cancelled-britney-spears-criss-angel-mtv-video-music-awards-2007-performance/)

Do you have sources for that? 75.117.246.215 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayne West has jumped to the defence of Britney Spears, and blamed MTV for ruining her career.

A day after the MTV Video Music Awards held in Las Vegas, West told New York radio station Z100’s JJ, on Sep 10 that the network “exploited” the troubled pop star.

"They exploited Britney in helping to end her career. When Britney was opening [the VMA telecast], near the end, I felt so bad for her. I said, 'Man, it's a dirty game. This game will chew you up and spit you out,’” People quoted West, as saying. 172.201.73.167 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Entertainment/International_Buzz/MTV_betrayed_exploited_Britney/articleshow/2358584.cms) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonycuk (talk • contribs) 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we only going to post negative stuff on the VMA performence?

There are other sources Z100, Hot 99.5 and MTV.com who are saying postive things about the performence? Are we going to post those as well? It seems baised to not include BOTH sides of the arguement. Remember folks we have to keep this article NPOV and we have to show both sides. Not just one. Also we can add that she broke her heel to the article as well. Their are pictures confirming that the heel brokeSkinwalker03 19:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, only publications that matter. It was overwhelmingly a bomb. Anything else will be seen as trying to make her look good when the fact remains, the majority of writers called it a train wreck. Maddyfan 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So MTV would be a source that matters. Several artists stood up for her most notablly Nicole from the Pussycat Dolls, 50 Cent and several other fans commented on MTV as well. IF were going to put a negative up then the postive should be showed as well. As equal oppourtunity and to keep a semblence of NPOV and unbaised enteries. I have no problem with the negative being shown as long as the postive is shown as well. More over we don't need stuff from Yahoo we already have a source for negative reviews and that's been given by NY DailySkinwalker03 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Sarah Silverman? She should be mentioned. Charmed36 20:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a little ridiculous don't you all think? The section on the VMA performance is larger than any other part of the article and there are many other sources that praised it or had reasons as to why it didn't do so well. Why are we focusing so much on this particular VMA performance anyway? She performed 'I'm A Slave 4 U' in 2001 and i don't see the VMA performance dominating that article. We're supposed to be objective here, so we should trim it down, or add in another side of the argument. 75.117.246.215 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the article and posted some postive stuff about the performence. If anyone has a problem with that just comment on this thread here. I did it because I thought it was important that the article be balanced and be non biased. Skinwalker03 22:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we need such a huge section on the VMA performance in the first place, I've never seen such an article for anyone's public performance and we certainly don't need to know what every celebrity, blog, and poll says. A more condensed version of that section or condensing it and merging it with the 'Reception' section would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. 75.117.246.215 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to add Yahoo music bloggers to the article? Skinwalker03 22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can delete the Yahoo stuff since that maybe is a little overkill and makes the article too long, but I think its biased to put a lot of positive stuff in the article since it is clear to anyone who just looks around the internet that the performance has received very negative reaction from a vast majority of people. I have a problem with there being something about how a lot of people loved the performance, since all I've seen is even the most die hard Britney fans say negative things about the performance. Of course there's always going to be some people who liked it, but all I've seen online since last night is articles about how terrible the performance was, thats why I created the section in the first place, because wikipedia is supposed to document notable things, and nothings been more notable on just about every entertainment related site. WIKI-GUY-16 10 September (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKI-GUY-16 (talk • contribs)

Do we need an entire page of information on the VMA performance?

Honestly, it's getting a little ridiculous how much is being posted there. I've never seen this much posted about a performance at anytime ive looked up songs on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia guys, not 'Entertainment Tonight'.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gimme_More&oldid=157239219"