Jump to content

Talk:Crazy in Love

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCrazy in Love has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 29, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 8, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 5, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 6, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 11, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article


Another cover + Reliable source needed

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another cover

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

Former RichGirl member, Brave, recently launched her solo-website, and in the biography of the site she revealed that her and Rich Harrison had worked on "Crazy in Love" together for that was a track designated for her project, however Harrison released Brave from his contact under Columbia Records.

The question now is: Should this be included in the article, cause it's a bit of important information regarding the history of this timeless and generation-defining song. SOURCE 68.161.181.233 (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pop not R&B (read the whole thing)

http://stereogum.com/826992/vh1-100-greatest-songs-of-the-00s/top-stories/lead-story/ Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Beggsie221 (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another cover version

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COVER IN FILME "Great Gatsby" - Usage in media

"soundtrack will also features new renditions of pop classics including the Bryan Ferry Orchestra and Emeli Sandé's new take on Beyoncé's "Crazy in Love"

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/great-gatsby-soundtrack-features-jay-z-andre-3000-beyonce-lana-del-rey-20130404 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello??????? why anyone update this??!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.174.116 (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC) ^[reply]

!!!???????????

Emeli

Requested move 17 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– The Beyoncé song is the primary topic. Its article received 37,000 views in the last 90 days – nearly 5 times as many views as all of the other Crazy in Love articles combined. (The factor increases to nearly 19 when Mozart and the Whale, a film known only in select territories as Crazy in Love, and Crazy In Love (Will & Grace), a redirect with negligible views, are excluded.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only at WP would we send readers to a dab page in the face of convincing evidence that people searching for "Crazy in Love" are overwhelmingly looking for the Beyoncé song. Dohn joe (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't only Wikipedia, Allmusic and other websites also give the artist name. Again WP:Naming conventions (music) recommends the artist name where there are multiple songs. And again for readers searching for "the Beyoncé song" then titling it (Beyoncé song) helps readers. On my mobile "crazy in" autocompletes with Crazy in Love (Beyoncé song) followed by Crazy in Alabama. If I have a good connection and images switched on the thumbnail is what tells me what the article is. But what if I don't? (Beyoncé song) helps those looking for the song and those not, removing it helps no one. Likewise if I can't remember it This is how songs by artists differ from Paris vs Paris, Texas type primary topic comparisons. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many people will not use the autocomplete, though - some will simply type "Crazy in Love" straight into the search bar if that's what they're looking for. And when the stats show that readers looking for "Crazy in Love" are overwhelmingly looking for the Beyoncé song, that is what we should point them towards, with a hatnote at the top for the minority of readers looking for something else. "Crazy in Love (Beyoncé song)" would, of course, remain as a redirect.
WP:Naming conventions (music)'s disambiguation recommendations are moot when there is clearly a primary topic, as there is here. You would have a point if the suggestion was to move the article to "Crazy in Love (song)". –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the argument; but in my opinion the reader is usually better served by a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on the reasoning underlying your opinion? How are readers better served by being sent to a dab page in a situation (as here) where we can be sure that we know which article the large majority of them want - and we have the ability to take them there directly? Dohn joe (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we could be sure what the reader wanted, we wouldn't have any of these issues, would we? Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice dodge, Dicklyon (talk · contribs), shifting plural references like "readers betters served" and "the large majority" to the singular, "the reader". Of course we can't be sure what any one particular reader is seeking. But if that were the requirement then every ambiguous title, even Paris and Ronald Reagan, would be dab pages, because we couldn't be sure what "the reader" wanted, could we? So the requirement is not that, but being sure that most readers searching with the term in question want a certain article. And in this case we are sure, per every criteria that is relevant, we know that article is this one. --В²C ☎ 08:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Several reasons.
  1. The “Kim Carnes” song of the same name has been recorded by Joe Cocker, Conway Twitty, Kim Carnes, Kenny Rogers and Julio Iglesias and has charted on three different occasions with three different artists. If WP had been around in 1988 or 1990 there would have a proposal to make this song the “primary topic”
  2. At ASCAP, there are 60 plus songs with the same name, of which over half have a listed performer. This proves beyond reasonable doubt that the title is generic and in all likelihood another song will come along which, according to the number crunchers and blind fandom, should become “primary topic”
  3. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, inter alia, “A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. My two points above clearly establishes that one song cannot be reasonably expected to have long-term significance.
  4. WP:STABILITY, This is such a generic song title, there cannot be stability if we wish to move the latest song to prime position, merely because it is the latest.
  5. Stability. Again. This article has been at the present location since March 2009. That’s stable. Doesn’t need to be moved.
  6. I also point out that unlike the Kim Carnes song, this song is only known for the performance by Ms. Knowles. Why should we even be having this discussion? Is WP embarrassed by the delectable Ms. Knowles?
  7. As per reasoned argument below by the nominator that even similarly-named songs may also need disambiguation (added --Richhoncho (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

--Richhoncho (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you'd care to strike the above assertions that are clearly false as shown below (i.e. 1) the arguments based on this song only charting/being known for performance by just one artist and 2) the fact that this is not the latest use of "Crazy in Love")? Dohn joe (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a chance of striking the comment. It is correct --Richhoncho (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is incorrect to say or imply that this song has not charted with multiple artists. And it is incorrect to say that it is the latest usage of "Crazy in Love" on the dab page. You wouldn't have to strike the entire comment, but you should at least acknowledge that the factual basis for a couple of your arguments is not true. Dohn joe (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that the nominator moved song articles with the words, ""too much confusion with other similarly-titled songs." If "similarly-named" songs cause confusion then songs with the same name must also cause confusion. I typed this slowly so you can read it and do not put words in my mouth! Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Let me make this simpler. Two yes/no questions. 1) Has this song charted with more than one artist? 2) Is this the most recent "Crazy in Love" on the dab page? Dohn joe (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain for the reason for your question, but will not get in a fever and you will not make me blue, because the question has no relevance. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason should be clear, considering I've said it explicitly several times. You based your opposition on several factual bases, a couple of which have been shown to be untrue. If you don't want to acknowledge that, that's fine. I assume that other editors and the ultimate closer of this discussion can see it for themselves and adjust the weight to be given your arguments accordingly. Dohn joe (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not clear because you patently wish to misunderstand, or pretend to misunderstand, everybody else is fine. I say "A" and your response is "B" is not like that. It's slimy and not worth anybody's time to pay attention to you. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out inaccuracies in factual statements is not slimy. Calling someone "slimy" is, however, a personal attack that reflects more poorly on you than me. Dohn joe (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that you have clearly ignored me when I responded to you telling you that there was a clear primary topic here, but not at the "Beat Goes On" articles. How about you drop the waxy statements and personal remarks and focus on this article? Your derailing of this discussion is not appreciated. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination starts with the words, "The Beyoncé song is the primary topic." What is patently obvious is you don't care for primary topic when it suits you. If you hadn't commented I wouldn't have need to reply. Think about it! --Richhoncho (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about when it suits me, it's about when there is a primary topic and when there isn't. I really wasn't looking to go through all this trouble since the "Beat Goes On" articles are not of immediate concern to me, but I will gladly check the pageview stats for you if you wish. 160 views for Sonny & Cher, 565 for The Whispers, 775 views for Madonna, 1094 for Beady Eye - and those are just for the songs. Do you see a primary topic from those stats? I don't. Now I think the trolling over articles that are irrelevant to this discussion about the "Crazy in Love" articles can cease. Also, for what it's worth, if the "I Will Always Love You" example is irrelevant per OSE, then how are your "Beat Goes On" examples relevant? It seems I'm not the one who picks and chooses parts of policies/guidelines when it suits them, am I? –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, according to this edit of yours, you didn't check the stats before moving the Beat songs. But that isn't the issue, I repeat, you think songs which have similar titles (but not precisely the same) need disambiguation - this is proven by your actions, not mine. Yet this song, where there are other songs with precisely the same title, you think does NOT need disambiguation. Circles and squares and bugger all to do with viewing stats. This is the point where you should not respond to me! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to grasp Chasewc91's argument after several attempts to explain it to you would be an excellent reason to stop responding to you! Dohn joe (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt to point out a contradiction in my edits is nonsensical and ridiculous. I have pointed out to you that the difference between "Crazy in Love" and "Beat Goes On" - regardless of precision - is the latter's lack of a primary topic. Plain. And. Simple. Perhaps this is the point where you should stop responding to me. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of corrections:
  1. The Beyoncé version has been covered and charted with at least one other artist: Antony and The Johnsons in 2009.
  2. Yes, there are 60+ songs, fewer than a half-dozen of which are worth mentioning on the dab page, and none of which approach the volume and depth of treatment in books as this one.
  3. See above. The treatment in books for this particular song is precisely what gives it greater enduring notability.
  4. This is not the latest item on the dab page. The Kerry Katona TV show, the Eminem song, the Hartnett film, and the Jill Johnson song were all contemporaneous with, or have come after, the Beyoncé song. If another "Crazy in Love" comes along that eclipses this one by a factor of 3-5, then yes, let's move it then.
  5. Re: stability. 4+ years since the previous move is four more years showing the enduring significance of this song versus the other uses. This is precisely the kind of "good reason" for moving that WP:STABILITY envisions.
  6. Again, other artists have covered this song and charted. We are having this discussion because some of us believe that when someone searches for "Crazy in Love", we should send them to the article they're looking for. Dohn joe (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • SONGDAB clearly says only to use disambiguation "when necessary". Plenty of evidence has been provided by myself and Dohn joe that suggests it's not necessary here. PTOPIC also says, "Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead." So while this is not the only "Crazy in Love" term, the fact that people read the Beyoncé song article 5x more than the other terms combined says a lot, and keeping this article disambiguated is a disservice to readers. The odds are very likely that anyone looking for "Crazy in Love" is looking for Beyoncé's song, and putting them through a dab page to get there is just a plain inconvenience. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation is only needed for terms that are not primary topics. Some songs that share their titles with other songs are the primary topic for that title, ie the previously-mentioned Dolly Parton example. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need to re-read anything. I made my point rather clear that SONGDAB applies only to cases where song articles need to be disambiguated. If a term is the primary topic, it does not need to be disambiguated. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what you are reading. Songdab reads,Unless multiple albums (or songs) of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, because there are many other albums named Down to Earth, but H.M.S. Donovan (Donovan album) is unnecessary. There are two or more songs called "Crazy in Love" so therefore needs disambiguating in full. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been pointed out many times before, but again, WP:SONGDAB begins, "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using...." WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tells us when disambiguating is necessary in the first instance. There does not need to be a specific reference to primarytopic at songdab, because songdab is a specific application of WP:DISAMBIGUATION (which includes primarytopic, and is clearly referenced in songdab). The idiosyncratic view that primarytopic does not apply to songdab has been refuted every time you bring it up. Dohn joe (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't appreciate the hostile tone; I'm not in court wearing leg irons. Regarding this move request, I don't think it is appropriate because of the other hit songs of the same title. I place far less importance than some on page statistics; otherwise this would be the encyclopedia of Pokemon. I place more value on historic popularity, including pre-Wikipedia and pre-internet. So the previous songs of the same title are just as valid to me as the more recent song. None of them are the primary topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - I didn't intend a hostile tone. The question to you was one of curiosity and trying to figure out your reasoning. The response to Richhoncho was more one of frustration that he jumped in and usurped your opportunity to answer. I appreciate your answer. Dohn joe (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no specific criterion for a PRIMARYTOPIC, so this suggestion doesn't fail anything, actually. But I believe Dohn joe has demonstrated potential long-term significance rather well with Google Books results. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should read above again, I opposed citing Primary Topic and stability, but did not mention Songdab until refuting another editor's use of the term! --Richhoncho (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Richhoncho, look again. You cited songdab first, in response to Chase's question re: "I Will Always Love You." I mentioned songdab in my !vote, but you did not mention it until you brought it up in your thread. And regardless, you do believe that primarytopic does not apply to songdab, correct? Dohn joe (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I did respond with reference to a query, but the bottom line still stands, my opposition does not mention songdab, because there is no need. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Way too many "Crazy in Love"s, both songs and not songs. Wikipedia should not be reorganised according to page views, these statistics are heavily biased to readers with idle time and ease of access, relying on them biases against scholarship and facilitating widest accessibility. The current set up has no downsides. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statistics are heavily weighted toward objective metrics, favoring people who, you know, use Wikipedia, and following policy. Your criteria heavily favors subjective opinion and ignoring policy and convention. --В²C ☎ 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. I have given reasons that are not JDLI. And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not say blindly follow page view stats. The pageview stats don't reflect quantitative likelihood to be searched for because they don't detect multiple hits from the same device (a propensity of modern hand held devices to not cache) and they don't detect hits on mirrors. So there is doubt, and there is good reason to doubt as the title is an well known idiom, and there are so many unrelated notable alternatives not favoured by a narrow current pop culture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to be saying that you believe that since "the title is a well known idiom" many more people are searching for the idiom than statistics indicate because the methods driving the stats don't filter out repeated queries by the same person, which is far more likely for popular song names than for idioms. That argument is pure conjecture. We don't even have an article about the idiom. The popularity of this decade-old song is not a temporary blip in history. If it's usage fades in the coming decades, we can always adjust. But for now, and the foreseeable future, when people search for "crazy in love", the vast majority are looking for this song. Whether we like it or not is irrelevant. --В²C ☎ 17:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I am saying that this title is easily misrecognizable. As for people who search, if you were interested in them you would agree that more precise titles are preferable because then the main line returned in search results would include the disambiguation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Dohn joe's Beyoncé: 1,640 versus non-Beyoncé 789 was very welcome work on his part, thank you, and yes it presents a prima facie case for the proposal, but I don't think it is quite enough given the number and diversity of other uses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Chase. I am confused why you should wish to remove the artist's name in this instance when you have, in other instances, been adding the artist's name with the edit summary of "too much confusion with other similarly-titled songs." I confirm for other readers that Chase does actually mean "similarly-named" and not precisely the same song title. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not checked pageview stats and don't care to do that right now, but it did not appear that Beat Goes On had a primary topic, if that's what you're referring to. I have made myself very clear that I believe Beyoncé's "Crazy in Love" is the primary topic for that phrase. –Chase (talk / contribs) 09:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chase, let's look more carefully. 4 songs are named, 2 have the same title (one of which some might argue is primary topic). The three you have moved by adding the artist's name are The Beat Goes On, And the Beat Goes On, Beat Goes On.The fourth was already at The Beat Goes On (Beady Eye song). As the name is slightly different for the 2nd and 3rd title there was no practical reason to add the disambiguation. What I still don't understand why you have two diametrically opposed actions in relation to song titles - if you can add the artist's name when unnecessary, why nominate to remove here? FWIW I have no objections to these moves for the very same reason I am opposed to this move.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really need you to spell it out for me like I'm an idiot. Quite simply, all those titles were very similar to the point that I felt they needed disambiguation, and I didn't see a primary topic. Here, I do see a primary topic. I won't explain this any further. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jill Johnson's song that came out at the same time and Eminem's song that came out a year later haven't received this level of interest. I could see your argument if the song was 2-3 years old, but it was released nearly 12 years ago and still receives astounding pageview stats that eclipse any other topic with the same name. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that there weren't less important artists than Beyonce, just that there's nothing about this song that will make a long-lasting or enduring contribution that will permanently overshadow other songs by the same title.—Kww(talk) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the article, "Crazy in Love" ranked 118th on Rolling Stone'​s 2010 list of the 500 greatest songs of all time. VH1 placed the song at number one on its 100 Greatest Songs of the 2000s list. It won multiple Grammys, and was the number one song in the U.S. for eight weeks, along with being a top ten song in several other countries. It's on the list of the best-selling singles of all time worldwide. When you add that to the coverage the song has gotten in various books and media, doesn't that mean that at least for now, this song has more long-lasting significance, which is likely to persist for some time? Another "Crazy in Love" may never match this one in significance. Either way, it's speculation on our part. Shouldn't we look at how things have actually been over the past decade? Dohn joe (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:RECENTISM. Beyonce will eventually die or retire, which will put an end to the promotional juggernaut bearing her name.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. WP:RECENTISM includes the WP:10 year test. We are now past ten years since the song was released and at its peak popularity, and it remains the most cited "Crazy in Love" in reliable sources. And the 1,640 Google Books results is not Beyonce press releases. The song has received treatment in multiple scholarly works. (See here, here and here for example). Does that affect your thinking? Dohn joe (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start the ten year test when she retires or dies.—Kww(talk) 15:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine for you, but I would hope that the closer of this discussion can see then that your position is not based on WP's policies or guidelines (or even an essay like RECENTISM). Dohn joe (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll disagree with that. Titles are supposed to be based on long-term significance. Ten years is a very young person's definition of "long-term". I have underwear and socks older than that. While it's unlikely that Beyonce herself will be completely forgotten when she's gone, her body of work virtually defines ephemeral.—Kww(talk) 16:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In your opinion, her work is ephemeral. However, years after its release, this song has been ranked on decade-end and all-time "greatest songs" lists by publications such as Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, Slant Magazine, VH1, NME, etc. 10 Nearly 12 years may not be a particularly long time for some people, but an article for an "ephemeral" song would still not receive the attention and traffic as "Crazy in Love" does this many years after its release. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting that loading a quick dab page is more convenient to mobile users than loading a giant Beyonce article, then having to load the dab page again (anyway) and then getting the page they want, no one has addressed this - and no one has explained why (Beyoncé song) is inconvenient to people looking for (Beyoncé song)? Why should we remove the most useful bit of information in the title? What possible benefit to anyone? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a really good thing that we have WP:POINT, because I would absolutely 100% go to Talk:Paris and request a move to Paris (France) as per the opposers. After all, we can't know for sure what the reader wants when they type in "Paris". And it's such an ephemeral topic--come on, in another fifteen billion years, who's going to remember the city in France? It would make things easier for fans of France to be sure they were finding the right Paris, too--Paris (France) is unambiguous, while if they look and just see an unadorned Paris in the drop-down bar, how are they supposed to know which Paris it's talking about? So confusing! Plus, come on, Paris (mythology) was there first and has longer-lasting educational value! Yeah, the city perhaps has the most long-term educational value, and definitely gets the most pageviews, and, okay, those are the main two criteria for what makes a primary topic, but... Come on. This is easy. Red Slash 04:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - If the article is the PRIMARYTOPIC, it will remain the PRIMARYTOPIC. No number of similarly titled songs will change that. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a very reputed guideline, since it is clear that this article is the Primary topic, i'm surprised any more discussion is being continued. MaRAno FAN 10:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why is this classed as her debut?

This song was not her debut single! Work it Out was her first solo single, it should not be discredited as such, just cos it failed to chart on the Billboard 100... If you check the box at the right of the page under single chronology, you will see that my 'claim' is supported there too! Anyone explain the inaccuracy?! 82.14.229.118 (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that bit; it was indeed misleading. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Crazy 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:

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) 04:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! source

This source is unreal. Is from a blog and from a Yahoo's user. So, the claim of 5 million copies or be "one of the best-selling singles" is unreal, at least for this song (and many others). I tried to find a better source, but is impossible. And after 2009, most of the references are probably primary sources. So, I will delete that, but before I want to notify on this talk page or if somebody can help find other (not primary source, please). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 23:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Crazy 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:

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) 10:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crazy 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:

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) 07:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crazy 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:

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) 20:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crazy_in_Love&oldid=869726249"