Jump to content

Talk:The Climb (song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Charts

9 in Brazil, please add it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.222.247.127 (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no source for that, besides that doesn't seem like a noble chart per WP:CHARTS. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Lyric Street?

Can someone please provide a reference that the song was released under Lyric Street Records? I don't believe it, since the soundtrack and its other singles were released under Walt Disney only. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 03:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've provided a source for the labels, per your request. The source also says it was released on Hollywood Records. I also added that as well. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That is an unreliable source, plus only the main is needed and that is Walt Disney Records. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
On the charts it was credited as Walt Disney/Lyric Street. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

grammy

it just got nominated for a grammy award for Best Song Written For Motion Picture, Television Or Other Visual Media

http://www.grammy.com/grammy_Awards/52nd_show/list.aspx#20

scroll down to Best Song Written For Motion Picture, Television Or Other Visual Media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.15.166 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, the info was added. Look for the information at The Climb (song)#Awards and nominations. Liqudluck✽talk 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What should we do with Joe McElderry?

We should come to a consensus about how to organize the cover versions and Joe McElderry version. If we do keep the infobox, I think the most logical way is to put the covers at the end, in order to make the transition easier to the McElderry section - the progression/charts section don't discuss the covers anyway. And what about the X-Factor cover subsection? Liqudluck✽talk 03:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What if we kept the current version, but retitled "Joe McElderry version" to "The X-Factor" or "The X-Factor covers"? The infobox would be kept to make it obvious that the section discusses the single. Liqudluck✽talk 03:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Retitling doesn't bother me, but I think grouping all the X-factor stuff together is best.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
How about a section "Cover versions", a subsection "Joe McElderry version" and then another subsection "Other cover versions"? As for the versions by Olly Murs and Stacey Solomon, they're not really that important, especially as Solomon's version was never even heard. A Moment Like This doesn't even mention that Ray Quinn recorded it, but he did. Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) mentions three other X Factor versions in the "Other covers" section. When You Believe mentions the other X Factor covers within the Leon Jackson section. So we have three options! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest a fourth? I think the McElderry version has notability in its own right now and probably will increase in notability over the coming months, especially if it makes the UK Christmas number 1 so why not create The Climb (Joe McElderry song) and use {{main|The Climb (Joe McElderry song)}} at the top of a "cover versions" section or {{for|the Joe McElderry version|The Climb (Joe McElderry song)}}. The liklihood is it'll end up with its own article in a few weeks anyway. HJMitchell You rang? 19:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the fourth option... it keeps this page organized and that one more organized. But is that allowable in Wikipedia?? The third seems very unorganized because it should be organized by the order of the people that covered the song. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Good point. If it's not notable enough in its own right now, it almost certainly will be in a week or so when the UK Christmas number one is announced- chances are it'll be number one or number 2 (ironically, probably a better claim to notability than Miley's!). HJMitchell You rang? 03:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Multiple versions of a song are always covered in one common article. If it's split, it will be merged back.—Kww(talk) 04:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I kind of agree with moving to the new page once it charts somewhere next week. That would establish the song's notability, and the page could include more info about McElderry's X-Factor history, the song's background, critical reception of the cover, the X-Factor tour and other live performances, the music video, and charts. That seems like enough information for the article to reach GA status. This article is currently at 65 KB, and the suggested length is 32 KB. Moving the cover seems like a reasonable divide. If kept here, we would also have to find info about the HelenaMaria cover, since it was released as a single. I checked but couldn't find anything on the song MOS or notablity about covers. Liqudluck✽talk 05:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Better to remove the ridiculous level of bloat in the existing material than to split it. Keep it in perspective: it's a weepy power ballad performed by a manufactured Disney star and a talent-show winner. Songs that have been covered by hundreds of artists, charting multiple times along the way, are covered in single articles. It's impossible to justify splitting this thing.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree that the article is about the song and can accommodate all versions. As Kww says, it's the bloat that is the problem: this article is not about the X Factor contest or any campaign to keep the X Factor song off the Christmas number one slot - and that kind of commentary should not be here. I42 (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I would agree but it would seem odd to have a potentially more notable song covered in the same article but below the "less" notable version. Besides, just because it's "commonly done" doesn't mean we have to do it. As Ipodnano points out, there's nothing (that I'm aware of) in any guideline (N, MoS) that says we can't or shouldn't split it and it would make the two article more informative (that is the general purpose of an encyclopaedia, after all) to readers rather than having one very long version. Mcelderry can have a paragraph or so here, with a "main article" hatnote. Or put the detailed information in McElderry's own biography? HJMitchell You rang? 11:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kww is absolutely correct. This article is about the song "The Climb", including all versions. A new article for Joe's version should not be created. This is the case with all Wikipedia articles on songs that have been covered (and if you find an example, it should be merged). It is definitely better to remove the bloat. Therefore, can we please ignore this fourth "option" (that is not an option) and concentrate on the others. Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to answer that, off topic though it may be, one of the key principles of WP is that we operate on consensus. Thus, if there is a consensus for splitting, there's nothing that says we can't. I'm not unduly concerned which way it goes, but I don't think we should discount this or any other option but allow editors to have a sensible discussion and consider all the options. </butting in> HJMitchell You rang? 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought project-wide consensus had been reached already. Unfortunately I can't find any reference to a guideline at the moment, thought I'm pretty sure the majority (if not all?) of AFDs relating to cover versions have ended in a merge. And now I have to go until tomorrow. So I hope if a decision is reached by then, it is the correct one. My preference is to do the same as the Hallelujah article. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There pretty much is a project-wide consensus. The closest parallel to this case was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero (X Factor release), and I'm certain that going down that road again would generate an identical result.—Kww(talk) 19:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty much up to us since there is no guideline that forbids or advices against having a separate article for a very notable cover. Whether it is common is not something to take into account, in my perspective, because most articles are not GA, most articles are not FA, most articles are not DYK. This is a GA and the way the cover of the song is there is too disorganized. First, isn't Joe McElderry's cover of "The Climb" a cover, so why is it in its own section rather than included in "Cover versions". Right now, the article looks very messy near the bottom with text below charts. And if McElderry's version is under its own article, it can be enhanced towards having more information. It would be for the best. I've been looking and no song article with a very notable cover has its own section with its own infobox and more. It's ultimately better to split this. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Last Christmas and Hero (Mariah Carey song) come to mind immediately. There are hundreds of others.—Kww(talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Ipodnano makes a good point with the most articles not being GA. However, we should be careful because as a GA and certainly if/when it makes FA, many people encountering similar situations will follow the consensus established here. So, to that end, let's establish consensus. It doesn't matter which option we choose, what matters is that we stick with that choice and work to keep the article(s) to the best quality we can. I also agree with Ipodnano that the article, as it is, is messy and, in order to develop it further, it will require cleanup and trimming or splitting at some point. HJMitchell You rang? 23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues raised

  • Just a couple of questions about things that were mentioned during the above discussion. Ipod and I do hope on taking this to FA, so extraneous information should be removed- so what did you think was unneccessary? Liqudluck✽talk 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, I feel the Christmas number 1 race is notable enough for a mention in the X-Factor section, since all the judges have commented on it and Cowell called BBC out for favoring Rage Against the Machine. Not an entire section, but perhaps a mention in a charts section- especially if The Climb does come out second. However, I seem to be in the minority so I'd like to hear everyone's opinions. Liqudluck✽talk 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • IMO: In the X-Factor article, but not here. I42 (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you think it belongs here? I feel it affects the single itself more than the tv series, since it won't affect the series' ratings, only the single's sales. Liqudluck✽talk 18:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Because the campaign to get the Rage Against The Machine track to number one is a reaction to the X Factor, not the song specifically. It depends what you mean when you suggest a "mention". If McElderry is denied the number one slot then perhaps a single sentence here might be appropriate; the large section that was here before seemed disproportionate. I personally think the campaign should be covered, but would suggest the greater detail belongs in the X factor and Rage articles. I42 (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like we agree =]. I also agree with the cruft tag. Liqudluck✽talk 04:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Labels

I haven't gone back to see when this began, but for the last few days Dbunkley6 has been adding the labels "Hollywood Records" and "Lyric Street" to the article, while other contributors have been removing these and leaving only "Walt Disney Records". I do not know which version is right, so I'm starting this discussion to hopefully avoid an edit war. Liqudluck✽talk 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's only Walt Disney Records, the soundtrack's label. Just because Cyrus is signed to Hollywood Records does not mean that this song belongs to them. And in the CD booklet of the soundtrack, only Walt Disney Records appears. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I left User:Dbunkley6 a message a while ago, but s/he hasn't responded. I was hoping s/he would, since s/he seemed pretty agitated about it and I wanted to discuss the reliability of his/her source, but he hasn't shown up. Liqudluck✽talk 23:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophes (of all things!)

Kww, I reverted you because Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives allows for either of the two ways of using a possessive apostrophe after an "s" but does not "prefer" one version. Your edit appeared to change the established way of doing it for no apparent reason and without any discussion here so far as I can see. I'm not going to start an edit war because I have better things to do but I think it ought to be discussed beforehand. HJMitchell You rang? 06:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You reverted an edit twice and didn't mean to start an edit war. An interesting technique. Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_.E2.80.9Cs.E2.80.9D_or_.E2.80.9Cz.E2.80.9D_sound indicates that the s is normal. Even the Chicago Manual of Style lists omitting the "s" as only an "alternative practice". Of the three techniques listed in the MOS, two of them result in "Cyrus's". The MOS has been phrased as it is to prevent edit-warring, and it's a shame you took it as an invitation to do so. After I took the time to correct the article, it wasn't a very good idea to revert it.—Kww(talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I won't justify that personal attack and accusation of bad faith with a response. However, what I will say is that when making such changes, it's generally a good idea to raise the point on the talk page before just going ahead and changing it. I reverted per the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle hoping that you would show the maturity to utilise the talk page (which I even linked in the edit summary). I would suggest that you utilise the talk page in future to allow any objections to be raised (for the record, I don't object to the change itself) or at the very least specify what you're doing in the edit summary. HJMitchell You rang? 20:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You will have to point out the personal attack and assumption of bad faith. I made a minor technical edit and accurately explained in the edit summary what I was doing and why. I believe it was inappropriate of you to revert it, especially if you had no objection to the edit. "BRD" is based on the concept that the reversion is based on an objection, of which you had none and still have none. Should no objections be raised by morning, I will reinstate it.—Kww(talk) 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh look...

...more information. I'm sorry if I annoy anyone by leaving these links here, but my favorites list is completely full and now very confusing. If anyone would like to add info from these links to the article themselves, please feel free to do so. Liqudluck✽talk 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  • 1 Q&A with Miley Cyrus songwriter Jessi Alexander: 'The Climb' being pulled from Grammy noms is 'devastating'

by Whitney Pastorek, Dec 1] More info on development, useful for replacing that Movie Muser link that wasn't too reliable.

  • 2 Does The Climb lack the X Factor? by Peter Robinson Dec. 14] Tiniest blurb on cover composition, a lot about how it was picked for X Factor. Calls original version a "sleeper hit" and "rapidly approaching a modern standard".
  • 3 Joe McElderry - 'The Climb' by Fraser McAlpine 16 December 2009] More on composition, reception of the cover version.
I added the first one. It might need some copy-editing. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I copy-edited. Liqudluck✽talk 03:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

X Factor

The X Factor section seems to contain too much irrelevant fluff. The song may have been recorded by three contestants as part of the show but only Joe McElderry's recording has been heard. Of the other two contestants, Stacey Solomon has not performed the song publicly at all so appears to have no place in this article. Olly Murs has performed the song publicly just once; a single performance is also non-notable and yet is covered in exquisite detail here. I propose that the section be confined solely to Joe McElderry's version and does not dwell on the X Factor reception which, if it belongs anywhere, belongs on the X Factor articles. I42 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

While Soloman's version isn't important to McElderry, I think is important to the song itself. The reception is also unimportant to McElderry, but is important to the Murrs cover (although it could be cut down a bit). Originally, Soloman and Murrs were under "covers" while McElderry had the section to himself, but Kww felt all the X-factor info belonged together- hence the retitling to X-factor covers. We could go back to putting Soloman and Murrs under covers along with a brief intro to McElderry, change back to X Factor to McElderry version, and restrict the section to McElderry.
I still hold out hope of putting McElderry in a new article, which would solve the problem, but I'm waiting until I can put together a mock-up in my user space in order to check if there is indeed enough info to warrant one. Liqudluck✽talk 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
My contention is that the Solomon and Murs versions are not notable at all. How is notability demonstrated for them? I42 (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
As an addendum, it might be more relevant to the song is we can source information on how it came to be chosen for the X Factor. I42 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is nothing about that on the Internet. Having McElderry's version in a new article would solve everything - that way you guys can structure the article in whichever way you please and we can structure ours. You mentioned notability; those covers are notable for Cover versions because they were performed on a talent competition but not enough for a new article since they didn't chart. McElderry's did chart. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple comments: first, WP:N really only applies to articles, not to individual facts, although the basic concept obviously has some broader applicability. I think the Solomon and Murs versions are only relevant as background details in the section over McElderry's version: they aren't important enough to warrant mention in any other context.

I remain firm that the article should not be split. Cover versions never receive independent articles. Removing details on every outfit that Miley Cyrus wore during every single live performance of the song would go a long way to bringing the article size under control. The article is obsessive in its detail over Cyrus' version. Details on who she dedicated the song to on what particular performance are unnecessary. Sentences like "Once she finished, Cyrus exited through a passageway in the stage while shooting stars were shown, followed by the earth in space" have nothing whatsoever to do with the song, and directly quoting reviewers to say it was a popular point in concerts is simply stylistic bloat. The article could safely be reduced in half and contain every relevant fact. Splitting it before cutting it down is inappropriate, and goes against every precedent relating to cover versions.—Kww(talk) 02:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with every single word that Kww just wrote. It's like you stole my thoughts. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I knew I was forgetting to respond to something. I'm glad Ipod and Kww commented so the page jumped up on my watchlist =]. I agree with Kww that the article needs trimming- definitely on the clothes, although I think dedicating the song to Malia and Sasha Obama is notable. In response to I42, I also found this Guardian article, linked above in the previous section, that has a bit on how it was picked for X-Factor. I've been meaning to add that to the article, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. You'll have to forgive the emphasis on the Cyrus version, since the majority of the article was created before the song was even picked for the X-Factor. Liqudluck✽talk 02:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I took another look at the live performances section, and although the clothing descriptions were already gone, I trimmed it down a little more. I don't believe any further shortening is needed. The only remaining clothing descriptions are of the inaugural performance and the world tour performances, both of which I think are significant. A lot of thought goes into every aspect of a tour, so I think a brief description of the presentation and reception of an inter-continental tour's closing number is notable. Liqudluck✽talk 03:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
They are arguably important in an article about the tour.—Kww(talk) 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is important there as well. Liqudluck✽talk 04:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The emphasis on Cyrus' version is due to that she originally performed the song. McElderry could easily have the same emphasis if it was in his own article. Right now it doesn't work. I really don't understand why you guys are not willing to splitting the article. What does the article offer with the two songs that it doesn't when it is split. -- 04:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Preceeding comment added by User:Ipodnano05
I resist the split because the article is unnecessarily large. Splitting is only appropriate when the material requires excessive space to cover in one article, not when the excessive size is due to an inappropriate detail level. The topic of splitting out multiple covers has been broached before on multiple songs, and invariably has resulted in a single merged article. You haven't provided a reason yet that this song is different from all others.—Kww(talk) 04:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it has that much detail. I gives a broad description of everything. Well, putting aside that beacuse we are always not getting to a compromise. This is different than most articles because it's GA and we really want it to be FA. Plus there is a difference between the two songs - McElderry's removes a lot of lines near the end and he approaches it in a different way and that could be discussed if the two articles were split. The song could very much warrant it's own article. And since we're speaking of not providing reasons... you did not answer my question. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
If you can find a sourced comparison of the two versions, that would fit best in a combined article, not redundantly covered in two article. This article is not different "because it is a GA". I would happily strip it of its GA status in a moment due to bloat, but haven't done so because I don't like using that as a club. It's a poorly written article, and it would be nice if you would reduce the detail level voluntarily. Otherwise, I'll wade into it in a few days and take care of it myself.—Kww(talk) 05:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Please do bring it up at GAR or take care of bloat yourself. You're very responsive to discussion (which I thank you for), so from that, I'm guessing you would agree to discuss any contested removal. No one owns this article. Liqudluck✽talk 05:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the article meets the requirements for notablity- either by itself or because of the RATM campaign, it attracted attention from publications like the BBC, the Guardian, New York Times, and the Associated Press, among others, appeared on the front page of the U.S. Yahoo!, and topped the charts in Ireland and the U.K. But again, I won't move forward with a new article until I've created a satisfactory article in my userspace, and while I do hope the article makes it to FA, I don't think splitting it just to get it to nomination status faster is appropriate. I'm guessing Kww will likely nominate a split for deletion/merge, and I don't mind that. I view deletion as a healthy process for determining notablity.
Right now, though, I42's question is how to improve the article as it is, with the cover intact. So let's leave splitting alone, since it is currently only a hypothetical situation. No use working ourselves up over something that hasn't happened. Liqudluck✽talk 05:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Kww, I bet to disagree that the article is poorly written... FAS like 4 Minutes (Madonna song) are just as long so I do not see your point as to the bloat. What is your ideal of a article that's written well? The level of detail is not too much that's why it passed GA (broad is on the check list). We have already reduced Cyrus' clothing description and please do not do that to the article. I'm willing to compromise if you are as long as the other text remains the way it is. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 06:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the article to insert dates (previously, one paragraph started 'after christmas week') and removing sales figures (these are contradicted by different sources - see talk page for Joe's article) I then read this discussion. I've reviewed the X Factor section again, and have now removed the section listing judges comments (it read to me like a final show review) and also the mention in the music video section of Olly recording a video. I read the article that was references for that comment, and the only mention was in a caption for one of the pictures, that Olly had recorded a video in early December. If that was the case, surely Stacey (if not Danyl as well) also recorded said video? Unless they meant 'during the night between Saturday and Sunday shows'? I think this article is not a reliable source, and in any case such statements are discussed here already. I've also compressed several sections so it now takes up less of the page, but am not convinced this is enough - more can probably be removed! Bertcocaine (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing at least Stacey recorded one, but because the article was published after the announcement, the authors deleted that info- at least, digital spy say she did, but it isn't reliable. Although the above discussion mainly relates to the Cyrus version, I agreed with most of your edits (I readded that Murrs and McElderry performed it on the final night) and removed the cruft tag. Liqudluck✽talk 03:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

References

I've just done a quick copyedit of the McElderry stuff and noticed there's a lot of poor referencing going on- at least one bare URL, others using [] instead of "cite" templates and a few sources (such as digital spy and youtube) that are of questionable reliability. I don;t have time to fix the myself or I would, but I though I'd bring it up here. Wile I'm here, I removed the stuff about the internet campaign against McElderry since it's irrelevant to The Climb but feel free to stick it back in if the consensus here is against me. HJMitchell You rang? 12:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's very annoying when people don't use citation templates but not everyone actually knows how (or are generally just too lazy). Digital Spy, though, is a reliable source, unless it's Digital Spy Forums, which isn't reliable for obvious reasons. But any DS news article is should be reliable. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Christian music?

Could somebody explain why this is included under WikiProject Christian Music? I understand it charted at #42 on Hot Christian Songs, but that doesn't mean much: it's just a positive song that got played on several CCM radio stations. I was gonna remove the project template myself, but here's a place to discuss it... JamieS93 18:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was added because it charted on Hot Christian Songs. I also believe that you're more involved in the WP:CCM than any of the regular editors of this article, so I've removed the template. If anyone objects, please feel free to comment and add the template back. Liqudluck✽talk 20:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanx! Same here - I'm glad to discuss if somebody has an issue with it, but I just think it's outside the project scope for "Christian music". JamieS93 14:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not originally preformed by Cyrus

This song was originally preformed by another artist, though I cannot remember her name. Ronk01 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The song was offered to several other country artists before it got to Miley, but all of them rejected it. It is possible one of them made a demo, but the song as it exists was first performed by Miley—the director of the film she sings it for asked for special modifications. Many people have covered it, though, if that's what you're thinking of. There may also be songs with the same title but different artists. liquidluck✽talk 02:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No I am fairly sure that I have heard this song on the radio before 2009 by another artist. Ronk01 (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject

I am proposing a WikiProject for all matter relating to Miley Cyrus. There are many articles for topics of her music and acting career so having an organized system with proper editors and collaborators would be great. To sign up or support the project please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Miley Cyrus. Thank you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Article length

Is it just me, or is this article about a low-importance item ridiculously long? --77.3.153.7 (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dutch girl performs this song also ( and better? )

The Dutch girl Vajèn van den Bosch has song ‘the climb’ at a talent show (The voice kids) in the Netherlands and she did an amazing job... it gave me a going on fighting mood...because of the lyrics. When ? on 17 February 2012 a number 10 notation in top list of singles in the Netherlands (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaj%C3%A8n_van_den_Bosch)  Retrorick wikipedia  talk  12:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Climb (Miley Cyrus song)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Climb (Miley Cyrus song)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "us_sales":

  • From We Can't Stop: "The Big 9 in 2014: RCA". HITS Daily Double. HITS Digital Ventures. December 11, 2014. Retrieved December 11, 2014.
  • From Circus (song): Trust, Gary (March 24, 2015). "Ask Billboard: Britney Spears's Career Sales". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved March 24, 2015.
  • From You Are Not Alone: "Best-Selling Records of 1995". Billboard. 108 (3). BPI Communications: 56. January 20, 1996. ISSN 0006-2510. Retrieved May 5, 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Climb (Miley Cyrus song). 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) 09:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW closure. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 03:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


The Climb (song) → The Climb – "The Climb" most commonly refers to this Miley song. TheRafaMarc15 (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Climb_(song)/Archive_1&oldid=1159475950"