Talk:Music Sounds Better with You

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Premeditated Chaos talk 21:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the vocalist on the dance song "Music Sounds Better with You" was in a punk band that disapproved of his collaboration with electronic musicians?

• Source: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/apr/03/stardust-music-sounds-better-with-you-michel-gondry

• ALT1: ... that Thomas Bangalter declined an offer of over $3 million from Virgin Records to make a Stardust album after the success of their song "Music Sounds Better with You"?

• Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/stardust-prep-remastered-music-sounds-better-with-you-628741/
• https://www.billboard.com/media/lists/best-songs-of-1998-8457624/

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Amazing Digital Circus

Improved to Good Article status by LunaEclipse (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

lunaeclipse ^(talk) 21:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Since I am a relatively new user (est Dec2023), I am not sure if ALT0 violates NPOV. But regardless, I prefer ALT1 JuniperChill (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

On additional information

@Popcornfud, why are you reverting my edits? The info I add is more complete detailing, and helps to understand context for the song. Please do not revert them, maybe reword them to flow better. There is no reason why you should be removing this info. BarntToust (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I do want to finish adding the info from the video before you do. Can you please wait? BarntToust (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The info you added is good, it was just poorly written. I kept the relevant additional info and rewrote the prose. Popcornfud (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I sorted the info myself, and kept the background away from the recording. I do want to put proper detailing here. It's explanatory. Thanks for your help on this. BarntToust (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Popcornfud, I don't see what is wrong with the specifics I added. also, you removed the images of Bangalter and Braxe, which I simply do not understand. I cannot advocate for minimalism when it becomes this "dumbed-down" in terms of lack-of-information. BarntToust (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

you also write that as teenagers, Braxe and Diamond bought house music. They were into house music when they went to gay clubs in the the late 80's. maybe 17-or 18, but their boarding school days would have been closer to, say, early teens. BarntToust (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

citations? An article about a band that existed for one song is what this article is about. It's not minimalism. It's preventing the article from acting as a coatrack for other materials. – The Grid (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

A coatrack, in case you were not aware, is a means through which several, fully-developed sub-topics are made in a single article to feign notability for a topic. This is not that. This is an explanation for how the music genre came about, how it came under notice of the musicians, in the context of giving a basic background to how the song came into existence.

here is your citation, @The Grid: [1] BarntToust (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You can find the gay stuff in the billboard article here [2] BarntToust (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Popcornfud did agree with the inclusion of this information; they even copy edited it for concise presentation in the Background section, which I thank them for. BarntToust (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I'd like to include the information you added, which is cited to reliable sources, but it must be well written and properly integrated.

I rewrote the material you added in this edit, but you rejected this and restored your version. Popcornfud (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I am going to have to be the person who noticed the state this article is in, and who invesigated it. Both parties are right. Both parties are kinda wrong. Bart Toust is right that the info should be included. The Grid and Popcorn fud are right about it needing to be written properly.

The way you are all going about this is wholly wrong, the lot of you. Collaborate on a solution that includes BarntToust's info, but also holds to the writing standards that Grid and Popcorn need to keep up. this entire "feud", (if it can even be called that, more like an improperly-executed discussion), reminds me of a bad TV episode where the characters get into a cluster of trouble because they simply can't or don't communicate properly. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:282D:933B:D824:B63 (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said above: I rewrote the material BarntToust added in this edit, but they rejected it and restored their version, complete with broken English. Popcornfud (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Popcornfud, I'm really sorry. I wasn't done citing the areas in the video and the articles of the information that i had added, and wanted to get it all down so copyediting for the whole could be done in the full context. Can I canibilize your format in that edit with my version so it can be written properly? BarntToust (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like the right thing to do. Let BarntToust use the rewritten prose from the version PopcornFud is calling back to, mixed properly with his expanded version, and write all the info together. I may even help reword some stuff, if I can help.

Just as BarntToust has been writing all that info down, everyone who wants things properly formatted has a duty to properly format them. Maybe BarntToust should have put one of those "this article is under heavy editing or expansion" notices at the top of the page when he was editing. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:282D:933B:D824:B63 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Take another look at this version of the article. What information do you think is missing and how do you want to integrate it? Popcornfud (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, I kind of just did that on my own. I'm sorry. I added the images, the audio sample, the video cites, and the info that i fact-checked. Sorry about that. If it needs to go before gestation, I understand.

I'll look through that version and take text from it to ensure the parity between what we all have agreed upon. BarntToust (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the last stable version for now per WP:BRD but I will look at your proposed changes in detail later and report back. I'm sure there is a way to integrate this detail, but please be patient and find consensus, there is no rush. Popcornfud (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

PopcornFud's version did have factual inaccuracies, and they were fixed by BarntToust's edits. stay with the version that BarntToust has appeared to just have mixed up. I don't think the version that PopcornFud has is better than the one that BarntToust has had; it has several fallacies. I'm reverting it to the synthesized version. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:282D:933B:D824:B63 (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So far, neither of you have consensus for any of your edits. You need to take the version of this page that has NO FALLACIES and edit from there. you can't build a house based on a broken, flawed foundation. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:282D:933B:D824:B63 (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not in line with Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:STATUSQUO, which says To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion, and the essay WP:STABLE, which explains it in more detail.

The article should be restored to the last stable version before this dispute began, and stay that way until we reach a consensus. Please undo your change. Popcornfud (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Same editor as the IP. i just made an account for this discussion. just wanted to declare that. I'll undo the change. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Right now, I'm only going to add back the background section. that is something we can agree on. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and get the background section out of the way. That's something @Popcornfud copyedited themselves, and is verifiable. BarntToust (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, no, let's let @Popcornfud look at this version so they can give their thoughts before we publish it. BarntToust (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll check this out in the next 24 hours. Hold tight, we will find a compromise that works this out. (BTW, you don't need to tag me every time you mention me, I'm following this discussion.) Popcornfud (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I want to do work going forward based off the version that @BarntToust has cooked up. it only requires basic edits for flow and wording, "copy editing", as you will, while the last stable version (while stable, has fallacies and needs eons of work with expansion) stays up until we decide. I'll too check out the above version and see what needs work after a look over. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

A notice for the collaborators

In order to make judgement and concerns regarding an expanded version of this page much easier for everyone involved, I've drafted the content of my pitched page (minus copyrighted material, which should be re-added in the article space once all concerns are addressed) over to User:BarntToust/sandbox.

For the pleasure of viewing, editing, and other contributions by @YodaYogaYogurt154, @Popcornfud (won't @ you any more than this, just here on this separate topic), and @The Grid, as a plan to copyedit for subsequent re-pasting once the involved parties are wholly satisfied with the contents of the page. If such a plan does not seem satisfactory, then we can find another means for solution. I just want to make things easier for everyone. A good day for all involved! BarntToust (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

check that out. it's definitely got that important information, and Popcornfud can play with wording to say what needs to be said in the best way to say it in, if it is not mostly said in a great way as it stands. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I used that draft to make a new edit. You can view the diff at my sandbox here. See the edit summaries for some inbetween edits to see the explanations for some edits.

I removed the timestamps for the YouTube source because they really gum up the prose. There may be a way to insert them into the citation footnote themselves.

I want to add that much of the stuff BarntToust added was very good — well researched and properly cited. It's almost all relevant information that makes the article better. (I even used one of the sources to add some extra info myself.) My only ask is that we integrate it better into the prose. Popcornfud (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I made an edit or two to address your concerns for the timestamps per the DJ Mag video and a copyedit or two. Thank you for adding the info from ABC Australia. I'd wanted to add more in myself, but didn't want to mess things up too much as things stood. Maybe, down the road, I'll check out the podcast that ABC Australia did with Braxe, and if I find anything important enough for our judgement, i'll be sure to see how it should be added in. I only trust the podcast to be an acceptable source of info because The Last of Us season 1, in its entirety as a good topic, uses a first-party companion podcast for vital info throughout its episodes. Maybe growth can be fostered for this article yet more? not today, certainly though.

I'm happy with the state your user draft is in, and fully support moving that version to the article space now, if you will. The cover art (which legally in the United States doesn't qualify under copyright law, but I removed it anyway) and the audio sample can be added back in with the edit, per the current version. Thanks for working with me on this Popcornfud, and thanks Yoda, for being the third party who told us both how it is and what we needed to do about it. it's also cool to see The Grid hanging about as well! BarntToust (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur. A job well done by everyone! YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Good call on removing the cover art regardless of copyright status, I looked it over, it shouldn't have been a problem, but it's good either way in the end. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been busy but I'll get back to this in the next couple of days. Popcornfud (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Changes look good to me. I've merged the draft into the mainspace article. Thanks everyone. Popcornfud (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Obsolete figure

The US certified figure of 140 000 from October 1999 was included under US sales, until recently. In May 2024 the RIAA verified and certified 500 000 US sales. At this point, the quarter-of-a-century old figure of 140 000 was removed. Only for someone to reinstate it, and get the person who updated to the May 2024 figure(me) blocked from editing for 31 hours for "disruptive editing"! It is ridiculous to say that the RIAA Certified Gold in May 2024, but then include the October 1999 figure of 140 000 under Sales. The person who reinstated the obsolete 1999 figure, and reported me for "vandalism", reverted it with one comment... "Why?"

Why? Why? Why? Because it's twenty-five years out of date, that's "Why?". The anachronistic, outdated, obsolete figure is still there(Why?), but I have tagged it "Obsolete source", which it obviously is. Unless we're still living in October 1999, and I just imagined the last 25 years. Just as, as a hypothetical example, if the RIAA updates a Certification from Gold to Platinum, the figure goes up from 500 000 to 1 000 000, AND THE OLD FIGURE IS REMOVED, so, in this case, a figure from 25 years ago(140 000) should have been updated to the May 2024 figure(500 000), and the obsolete 1990s figure of 140 000 should have been entirely replaced with the new, correct figure. It is bizarre that a figure from the Clinton administration is still used as the "correct, current amount". And anyone trying to update it is accused of "disruptive editing". 197.87.143.164 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there's no reason to keep the old figure, so I've removed it.

(FYI, I'm not an admin here so had nothing to do with your block — but it looks from your history that you were blocked for edit-warring, getting mad and shouting at people, not for simply trying to fix the article.) Popcornfud (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Behavior is making me think it's a LTA. I already discussed this on their talk page and their removal of my comment at least acknowledges they read it. – The Grid (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A source to remind us all about sub-referencing

[[3]] this can help the YouTube video from DJ mag cites. I think. Timestamps should be included in sub-referencing. BarntToust (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have experienced this issue with referencing multiple pages and you can kind of get around it with using a citation format where you state the page in the inline format. For YouTube, this would be more complex as there's two formats for links: youtube.com/watch?v=VIDEO_ID and youtu.be/VIDEO_ID.

Using the timestamp functionality &t=0m0s will only work on the first format while the second format would need to use ?t=0m0s at the end. I think it's ok as is as the timestamps are provided regardless of no direct link to the timestamp. – The Grid (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Eh, it would cut the references down by a couple hundred megabytes. I guess when the wide rollout per the Foundation happens (est. later this year), we can just play it by ear to see if it would work. BarntToust (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding URL for metric that I will do later.

https://www.billboard.com/lists/top-dance-love-songs-edm-all-time/stardust-music-sounds-better-with-you-1998/ BarntToust (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

https://mixmag.net/feature/15-classic-house-tracks-love BarntToust (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)