Jump to content

Talk:Truly Madly Deeply (song)

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

Untitled

[edit]

Why does 7" appear in parentheses after the CD reference underneath the photo? Standard CDs are 5 inches, standard vinyl singles are 7 inches. If this is to differentiate the standard CD from the short-lived 3-inch CD, it would seem unnecessary, as that format was never in wide use. If it is to indicate a vinyl single was also available, perhaps it would be clearer if it appeared after a comma or semicolon, as in < CD; 7" > < CD, 7" vinyl > or simply and perhaps most clearly < CD, vinyl > Abrazame 23:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Was the version released in the U.S. recorded there a year later than the version which was released in Australia? If so, that would seem worthy of explanation in the body of the article; if not, the separate-year citations should obviously be under "Released," not "Recorded." And is there anything that has made this the pinnacle of their work other than it was the highest charting disc of their career? Without elaboration or citation that reads a bit too POV. Abrazame 19:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the error, TMD was recorded at the same time as the rest of the album's songs and was not re-recorded at a later date. Sunhawk 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the pinnacle sentence sounds POV Sunhawk 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

singles

[edit]

the TMD singles list is far from being complete. needs more work. (will add later when its not 3:30am :) ). there's also a problem with the template as SG had more than 3 singles and a different release order depending on the place (europe got tears of pearls and the rest didn't, australia got universe, ttmab came out twice etc) AilaG 00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going with which singles came out of Australia as the overarcing order since Australia came first when it came to releasing singles. The template is meant to show the "nearest" singles to the one currently being displayed so that users can move back and forth, at least as i understand the template. And yes all the singles need more work, i have been doing my best to find time to fill them out but any help is always appreciated Sunhawk 04:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CD Cover

[edit]

The image of the cover for this isn't big enough for the size it's being forced to in the data box on the right. Someone should scan a bigger one (I think the size is in the data box template so that can't really be changed). 87.127.71.250 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to go right ahead and do so. Sunhawk 07:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cascada version

[edit]

Page seperation?

[edit]

I think it would be better to have the two versions on seperate pages. The normal format of a single page has one info bar with the release information and I think it keeps the information clear to have them seperate since one is the original version and one is a cover by a different artist. Thoughts? Sunhawk 01:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions should be covered on the same page as the original version. A few examples are "I Will Always Love You", "All by Myself", "Light My Fire", "A Moment like This", "I Drove All Night"... just a few off the top of my head. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should be split into two sections; it seems slightly confusing and also cluttered to have two on the same page. Even if other songs (articles) have their covers in the same article, it doesn't mean it's right...though I'm no expert on WP policies/standards. Atomic Taco 05:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that having more than one charted single (and the accompanying data and infoboxes) can be quite confusing, particularly with the placement of the #1 chart sequence infobox at the bottom of the article where it reads as if it was the achievement of the most recently discussed version. In addition to that, someone only interested in the first version might not scan through all the Cascada stuff to find the additional material about the Savage Garden version.
On a different matter, what is certain is that the song's original recording by Savage Garden earned several times as much airplay and sales than the remake, yet the remake takes up several times more space in the article. I'm all for acknowledging remakes even if they were only an album track from a major artist, or not greatly successful. But the bottom line would seem to be that it's not encyclopedic to have lesser versions outweigh the greater ones in terms of article coverage. My suggestion to a Cascada fan who doesn't want to see their part of the article severely edited for space and relative significance (as the more recent version is drawing more editors here) is to allow their interest in the song to encourage them to research how the original version did in comparison to their own in the markets they mention in their own portion, for example, and add this data to the Savage Garden portion. Despite the fact that there are more countries with singles charts now than ten or twenty or thirty years ago, or that recent releases would have more interested editors and searchable info than earlier ones, doesn't mean that the inclusion of such material about these lesser versions should be construable as greater success. (And by lesser I simply mean significance in the sales/airplay realm, and notability in the "life" of the song, I haven't heard the Cascada version and so am making no value judgement.) Abrazame 03:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Cascada version is rubbish, but I also think it should have a separate article. The information is there, the single is notable, it would undoubtedly have an article of its own if it were not a cover version, so it should be split off. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the actual song, so as I said before, all versions should be in the same place. I can't see anything about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs but there are discussions on the talk page and this seems to be the consensus. It certainly is what happens at other articles, especially featured ones. If you want this changed, I suggest you talk to WP:SONGS about it. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NotGonnatellYouMyName

[edit]

This is one of me and my mom's favorite songs. It was on the radio all the time when I was a toddler. Until now I thought it was sung by a woman! Oops—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.37.214 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we delete this comment? It doesn't seem to be helpful to the article or the discussion in any way. NotGonnaTellYouMyName, it's wonderful that you like this song, but Wikipedia is not the place to say it: go find a good web forum. Dragonjohann 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting nightmare

[edit]

This article needs to be formatted much better than it is, I can't make out anything in the cascadia section for all the Wiki style issues. (I didn't do it, obviously, but don't have the knowledge to clean it all up.)Cvbear 11:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chica cherry cola

[edit]

Do you think it might be a good idea to put a page redirecting from the phrase "chica cherry cola"? I know that this has nothing at all to do with the title of the song, but this song gets mis-named so frequently that I'm almost certain many people are missing the article entirely because there's nothing to go on if you search for that in Wikipedia. "Chica cherry cola" has, in a fashion, become an unofficial title for the song. I'd put up a redirect myself, but honestly, I don't know how. Do you all think this is a good idea? Dragonjohann 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of their first single, "I Want You," which includes the phrase "chic-a-cherry cola" in two verses. Mentioning the phrase in the article for "I Want You" is certainly a good idea, and would seem to be a precursor to establishing a redirect. Incidentally, note the way the phrase is formatted in the actual lyrics, despite the fact that two other misconstruances of the phrase are more popular hits on Google. Get the phrase right in the Wiki article and, after all the mirror sites get done copying it, it will be the most popular! Abrazame 03:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, yeah, that was definitely a major brain fluffy there. Thanks, I'll put this comment on the right page. Dragonjohann 68.216.95.39 17:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong genre?

[edit]

Well, I'm not an expert at determining a song's genre, but this is definitely not an "Industrial, Hard Rock, Hip Hop" song! Could someone please reinsert the genre thing with a correct genre? --The.Modificator (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese cover

[edit]

There is also a cover version little known outside PT/BR by brother-sister duo Sandy & Junior, called No Fundo Do Meu Curaçao. -andy 92.229.164.137 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 1990

[edit]

In the intro it says the song was released in March 1990. Is this a typo or does it have something to do with the versions of the song? Frank0051 (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audio sample

[edit]

Can someone add an audio sample to the article? Ryguy611 (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryguy611 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I added one myself Ryguy611 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Truly Madly Deeply. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Truly Madly Deeply. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Truly Madly Deeply (song)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
Start class:
  • Green tickY A reasonably complete infobox
  • Green tickY A lead section giving an overview of the single/song
  • Green tickY A track listing
  • Red XN Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current single/song; a band navbox is insufficient)
    • Which Savage Garden members played here? What instrumentation?
  • Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year

C-class:

  • Red XN All the start class criteria
  • Green tickY A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art
  • Green tickY At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section)
  • Red XN A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
    • Some details missing on some tracks.
  • Red XN A full list of personnel, including technical personnel
  • Red XN Reliable independent in-line references supporting claims
    • Some claims not referenced, including chartings.
  • Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the single/song

B-class:

  • Red XN All the C-class criteria
  • Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
  • Red XN A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
  • Red XN No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources
  • Red XN No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS
  • Red XN No obvious omissions, but also no obvious extraneous information – such as "trivia"
Evaluation based on WikiProject Albums assessment scale and adapted for a single/song. Please update this list when the article meets any of the above criteria, changing the article's class assessment as appropriate. Last reviewed by – Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 06:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Truly Madly Deeply. 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) 04:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

[edit]

@Kassim374: please stop adding non-main charts to the table, discuss here instead of edit warring. Thank you. Ellokk (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the sources listed seem to be regarding airplay and airplay monitor, and are thus not year-end charts. Ellokk (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 September 2023

[edit]
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: moved. Per consensus, the punctuation here are inefficient to differentiate the two topics. For Savage Garden's song, it is moved to (song) dab per WP:DABSONG as indicated in the discussion. If there are new song articles with similar titles, this RM should not restrict further moves of the Savage Garden's song as the discussion here isn't pertinent to whether the song here of a WP:PRIMARYDAB arrangement. A dab page will be created at the base name as well. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Despite one of the titles uses commas, it may be confusing to have these pages at base name and editors may link the wrong article unintentionally which may divert readers to the incorrect version. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably there should be a dab page at Truly Madly Deeply (disambiguation). Mdewman6 (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. Red Slash 22:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree, surprised there currently isn't one on the date of this nom. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:21, 9 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Truly_Madly_Deeply_(song)&oldid=1210400650"