Talk:It's All Coming Back to Me Now

It's All Coming Back to Me Now was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 28, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 14, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
February 16, 2010	Good article reassessment	Kept
December 30, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

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

Rock music High‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

'1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Pass

3. Broad in coverage? Fail (non-notable stuff added, see first comment below)

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Nice re-work of the article, I still have Additional comments :

I doubt the Track listing & Chart performance subsections are necessary, maybe something like The single appeared on ... and the chart performances should be added to the other informations already present and the rest discarded for it is non-notable.

Lincher 18:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments -- I've left a note on your talk page. I'm unsure why it's failed on #6? I've removed the sections added by User:Max24 (hence #3). They destroyed the praised balance between the three sections. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA awarded

Sorry, for #6, I've changed it. It now passes GA status. Cheers, Lincher 14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit premature I think. The lead is horrible. It needs to be a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Condense it and save the citations for the body. Move the audio samples box which jumps out at the reader on the top of the page. --kingboyk 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I've tried to improve the layout somewhat, but it's difficult to squeeze all those boxes in :) Revert if you don't like it. --kingboyk 20:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it makes more sense to have them next to the relevant descriptions -- but I do appreciate that it is hard to squeeze them in. Everytime I added something to the infoboxes I needed to desperately find something to add to the adjoining text. I wonder if screenshots for the other two videos would buy us space? The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can get some advice at WP:SONGS - you are, after all, doing what is supposedly recommended - writing about a song and not having articles for each specific version of it... There is a way to make a consolidated infobox, but I doubt it would work well with multiple artists. A big fat "dunno", sorry... definitely the samples need to be dispersed from the top though, they were dominating the lead section (the most important section of an article). --kingboyk 21:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC) An example: What Time Is Love? has an infobox covering 3 singles, but the difference is that they're all by the same artist. --kingboyk 21:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah: I had them all in one infobox before peer review, but then someone observed that it looked like a colloboration on one single. The three infobox version seemed to satisfy peer review OK. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, kingboyk, I've just noticed your rather abrupt comment about the Lead. Since I've done my best, perhaps you might like to have a go. I've spent far too much time on this. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Loaf's Video

I watched the video for the first time today, and I noticed that there were a lot of similarities to the set, and the set in his video for the song "I Would Do Anything for Love", I am pretty sure it's the same. Is it? Any help would be appreciated! -Dylan Bradbury 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but videos to Steinman's ballads tend to feature gothic mansions: I've commented on that in the artilce re: Total Eclipse... If anyone finds a citation for AFL, then great. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full Circle Divas Version

On the Kung Ako Na Lang Sana Soundtrack there is a version of this song by the Full Circle Divas. Does someone want to check that out? You can get the album around.

Reply to Max24

(I'm posting my reply to Max here for clarity, since it's about the article.)

Hiya. I think the table is fair enough, but the lack of sources worries me. Do you think you can find a way of indicating the source for this information? Is it all from one site? If you don't know how to work the <ref> tags, just put in the [url] or [urls] like that and I'll sort it for you.

Example of why. Next week, some user comes along and changes Dutch Airplay+Sales Chart from 5 to 7, claiming to "correct information." How doe we know which is correct?

When I created the page, I had all of the infoboxes in their correct sections (your thinking). An editor, however, noticed that there wasn't enough text to do this on some resolutions. There is enough content for Dion and Meat Loaf now, but not for Pandora's Box. At some resolutions (actually, you can play with the text size in your browser to see what I mean) the infobox eats into the Dion section, and it looks a bit messy. I've kept the PB infobox at the top (which is reasonably close to the relevant text anyway. The JPS ^{talk to me} 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPS,
I'm a freak chart, and all these positions are correct. I've been gathering Dion chart facts for almost a year. I have posted all of these infos on this forum Celine Dion - chart history. Could this be included in the references section? This is the only source where all informations are in one place. If not, I can look for every country separate source, but it will be many, many sources...Max24 14:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, we're not allowed to use forums as a reliable source. On reflection I guess it might be OK as it stands, because the information could be verified if needed by some site. Thanks for your efforts. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyrighted Lyrics

The article contains the usage of copyrighted lyrics:

'There were those empty threats and hollow lies 'And whenever you tried to hurt me 'I just hurt you even worse and so much deeper.'

Isn't this a Wikipedia violation in the usage of those verses/section of the song? ResurgamII 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I take it back. I'm quite sure it falls under some fair use. ResurgamII 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short quotations like that are fair use when accompanied by some discussion/description/critical commentary. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems identified in GA reassessment

A few problems have been found regarding this article during a reassessment undertaken as part of the GA:SWEEPS. The issues are noted here. If they have not been addressed within 7 days, the article will have to be delisted. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 22:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now been passed. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 23:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heathcliff Dancing with Catherine's Corpse???

There's a quote by Jim Steinman in this article that says, "The scene they always cut out is the scene where Heathcliff digs up Catherine's body and dances in the moonlight and on the beach with it." Does anyone know what in the world he's talking about? In the novel, Heathcliff digs up her coffin but refrains from opening it; on another occasion he bribes the sexton to open the coffin and looks at her face. That's it. (Not to mention the action all takes place in the middle of the Yorkshire moors, nowhere near a beach.) Does anyone have any idea where Steinman's getting this imagery from? Is it part of one of the opera adaptations? Is he confusing Wuthering Heights with something else? 173.119.6.125 (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on It's All Coming Back to Me Now. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://hosting1642755.az.pl/sp%20uk%20best%201996.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/page-259376.xml?year=1997

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Python???

-Python? I just watched the Pandora's Box video, and I didn't notice any python. I'm perhaps a bit drunk, but my wife is _not_, and she didn't notice one either -- all we noticed is a mexican black kingsnake. Is the article erroneous, or did we miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstar3k (talk • contribs) 23:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on It's All Coming Back to Me Now. 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) 05:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on It's All Coming Back to Me Now. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=1996
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828234305/http://www.virginrecords.com/home/news.aspx to http://www.virginrecords.com/home/news.aspx

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) 19:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It's All Coming Back to Me Now. 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/20060502061543/http://www.schlosshotelhubertus.cz/kulturklub-cz/ploskovice-E.htm to http://www.schlosshotelhubertus.cz/kulturklub-cz/ploskovice-E.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) 21:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

movement

Steinman won a court movement preventing Meat Loaf from recording it.

"movement" is a strange word in this context. I'd suspect "motion" was intended, but a motion is a procedural maneuver within litigation, which I don't see mentioned. An order? An injunction? —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with Wikipedia's "Be bold" guideline, the word the sentence has been revised to describe a court case. Msoul13 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

The first paragraph of the lead section contains information about the dispute between Steinman and Meat Loaf that seems too specific for the introduction and summary. Would it alright to move this information to a new section (possibly titled "Legal dispute")? Msoul13 (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

It's All Coming Back to Me Now

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. I've placed 11 citation needed tags, but there might be more unsourced bits. Spinixster (chat!) 09:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.