Talk:Can I Have It Like That

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Can I Have It Like That article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Can I Have It Like That 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
Date	Process	Result
December 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed

Gwen Stefani Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gwen Stefani, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gwen Stefani 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.Gwen StefaniWikipedia:WikiProject Gwen StefaniTemplate:WikiProject Gwen StefaniGwen Stefani articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This 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 articles

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Heineken ad - not Gwen Stefani?

I think there might be a different version of this song for the Heineken ad - maybe due to licensing? It sounds like it's not Gwen Stefani singing on it. Add'l source would be required to add to the article obv. DNordquist 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake, please clarify

The paragraph about chart performance says that the song peaked at number 49 on Hot 100, but the chart table says 48. Which one is correct? Indianescence 12:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 20, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Overall good. I made some minor changes. These items need more attention:

"When Williams created the track, it was originally to be used by P. Diddy" - too wordy. Try "Williams created the track for P. Diddy."
Music video section says "Williams this, Williams that" too much. It should be reworded to use more pronouns, or to use other devices to prevent so many clauses and sentences from beginnig with "Williams".

2. Factually accurate?: Well-reference. Reference number 14 should be split into three different references.

3. Broad in coverage?: Short article, but thorough considering the topic.

4. Neutral point of view?: Very nice here. Especially coverage of critical response.

5. Article stability? Great. No edit wars.

6. Images?: Good. However, the music sample page is missing some info. See Image:John Mayer - City Love.ogg for an example of what information needs to be included.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 17:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded that sentence and changed Williams to pronouns where it sounds better. Reference 14 should be fine since one citation doesn't necessarily have to coincide with one reference (see Islam for an example). I'm not sure what's required for the sample since it has the performing artist, source, and copyright holder. The only difference I can see with the example is that it includes the songwriter, but the songwriter often isn't the copyright holder, which is what really matters. 17Drew (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not factually correct. The mistake i pointed out has not yet been noticed. See above (Mistake, please clarify). If this is done, then the article is good. Indianescence (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review part II

Since the editor who put this on hold has left this article, and has ignored two requests to re-visit the article, i will do my own review.

Entertainment Weekly called it an - you need to attribute the quote to the person who said it (for all of the quotes), for EW it is Josh Tyrangiel etc
and Williams was shot in front of the explosions on the streets of Los Angeles, California. - i don't understand this part at all?

That's all i can spot out, nice work improving the article. M3tal H3ad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reviewers' names for all of the reviews except for The Guardian's since it didn't list an author. I reworded the sentence to make it clear that the scene was shot, and not Pharrell. 17Drew (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, passed. M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Title

I'm a little confused as to why this page has a lowercase L for "like" in the title. After a look in the page history, it was moved to this title from what would appear to be the correct title in September of 2006. Are we sure this is correct? GlassCobra 17:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAME#Music says to uncapitalise conjunctions and prepositions. So I think the lowercase "like" is the correct version. Spellcast (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WP:NAME recommends putting like in lowercase letters. This has been applied to some articles such as It's like That (Mariah Carey song) or A Moment like This, but most use a capital l, like It's Like That (Run-D.M.C. song) or Ass Like That. So the MoS says one thing but most people (in and out of Wikipedia) do another. 17Drew (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:MUSTARD, which is more detailed and says the same thing. I've always been taught that conjunctions, prepositions and articles shouldn't be capitalized if they are three or fewer letters, should be if they are five or more, and can optionally be either way at four letters. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone agrees prepositions five letters or more should be capitalised (e.g. Look After You and Just Between You and Me). If it's optional at four letters, I guess it comes down to what people think looks better. Would you prefer this article be moved to a capitalised like? Spellcast (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl 12" sells on ebay for $8000; anyone know why it's so rare?

http://offer.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&_trksid=p2047675.l2565&rt=nc&item=251383911897 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.127.154 (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects this page, suggesting that the capitalization of "like" should be removed. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — $Llywelyn II$ 14:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Can I Have It Like That. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330155231/http://stylusmagazine.com/reviews/pharrell/in-my-mind.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/pharrell/in-my-mind.htm

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) 23:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Can I Have It Like That. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080115155438/http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=913 to http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/music_review.asp?ID=913

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) 19:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]