Talk:Everytime/Archive 1

296:, being lazy and immature by also reverting my correction of the CMARD date is unnecessary and very unwelcome here. If you do not agree with the 2002 recording year provided for Everytime, then change that instead of undoing all the productive additions made by one user. You do not have the supreme right decide what you see fit for these articles as they are not solely based on your choices and opinions. Spears certainly was recording by December 7, 2002 and was working on more personally crafted material much prior to other recordings in throughout 2003. If you believe that, continually reverting any submission of material by me due to some underlying resentment will be excused, you will be confronted about it as no one has time for putting up with such petty behavior. Along with faqs.org, old pdf files from 2003 also the same thing on proceedings that took place on April 26, 2003 to register the copyright for Everytime, which is stated to be created in 2002, NOT 2003. If anything I will state that the song probably wasn't completed that year, but the vocals were certainly recorded by year's end. 1491:, this should be disambiguated. Also, I generally believe that the names of artists should be included in the titles of articles about their songs and albums. That makes the titles more clear and recognizable, and avoids future maintenance headaches over whether to consider some particular song or album as primary. Including the name of the artist is helpful to readers, the popularity of music is volatile, and new releases often appear with the same names (or strings of lyrics that might be mistaken for a name). Moreover, in this case, the ambiguous title has several other meanings and is also a homonym for 1111:. Also, I generally believe that the names of artists should be included in the titles of articles about their songs and albums. That makes the titles more clear and recognizable, and avoids future maintenance headaches over whether to consider some particular song or album as primary. Including the name of the artist is helpful to readers, the popularity of music is volatile, and new releases often appear with the same names (or strings of lyrics that might be mistaken for a name). Moreover, in this case, the ambiguous title has several other meanings and is also a homonym for 220:. I have contributed significantly to this article and I have thought about this move in the past. First and foremost, there are only two other songs named "Everytime": one by Simple Plan that is redirected to the album's page and another one by Butterfingers which barely has information on it. Even if there were a thousand other songs with the same name, Spears's article was created first. I believe it should be like it is now, with a hatnote linking to the disambiguation page. 51: 408:. The supports win the head count by one, but have generally used weaker arguments. This page is a de facto primary topic, and a few editors said it should not be, but none expressed evidence to back up this belief, and as a primary topic, NCM does not apply in the way supporters have used it. I was initially going to call this no consensus, but either way, the page stays. -- 335:, stating that she "would never do that" and that "it's not my style". It doesn't matter if she said that she "will let the song speak for itself" in another interview, she has still denied that she wrote a response track to Justin's song. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter if she didn't specifically mention this song when she said that, she still said that she did 100:

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on

291:

thinks that they own Knowledge articles concerning recording artist and stage performer, Britney Spears. I have made it clear that Cry Me A River was NOT released in December 28, 2002 as that was only a radio entry date. The single itself was issued to radio in mid-November and the video on November

807:

You are in favour of disambiguation by punctuation, by html code, by the written in respect of music which is an aural tradition? I don't think I've ever heard on the radio, "that was was "Everytime" which is spelt as one word" but I have heard on frequent occasions "that was song by artist." Why

1685: 1137: 1681: 1133: 756:

See the present title. Are you saying that this song is primary for "Everytime/Every Time" because that's what it is at the moment? Quite frankly that is ridiculous. If your argument is that it is a primary sub-topic, then you should be proposing a move to

2317: 2189: 1512:. Basically, these RMs are becoming a "we won't desist until it is moved". Nothing has changed since the 2010 and 2013 RMs, and considering that in almost 6 years no problem has existed for readers, there is no real reason to move the page. 35:

11:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)acute What is the use of having a list of unofficial remixes? The list would be endless as anyone can do mixes andput them on emule and whoever finds them will consider them mixes/unofficial mixes and end up here?

1453:– "Everytime" (one word) is a common version of "every time" (two words) and is not unique to Spears's song. In addition, there are numerous other songs with the one-word "Everytime" title including at least three with articles (see 1689: 1140:, few if any of which are relevant. The Butterfingers song is the only other "Everytime" with an article or anything approaching coverage on Knowledge; subjects called "Every Time" are already adequately distinguished per 2318:

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&title=Everytime&artist=Britney&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2008&sort=Artist&perPage=25

2190:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120329010054/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20040001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe

2193: 679:, which I have just prodded because it doesn't indicate notability. This song charted very highly, so it is more likely that people will want to search for his song than any other song with this name.-- 950:

The first guideline uses the word "may" and both give examples where the primary topic is significantly more primary. If something is not significantly primary we run the risk of running foul of

1280: 97:

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

731:. There has been no indication of any lack of primary topic for this song. Who is searching for "everytime" looking for anything but this song--it doesn't seem to be very many people. 331:"Britney has neither confirmed or denied this allegations" is incorrect. The other writer for "Everytime" confirms that it is a response to "Cry Me a River", and Britney herself 204: 431:– Because as we last discussed with the result of no consensus, there are a lot of song titles "Everytime" in different artists. And the named article should be redirected to 2141: 2179: 1564:

it should have the artist anyway. We need to get beyond this idea that it's a mark of shame for a song by Britney Madonna Gaga etc to be labelled (Britney Spears song) etc.

2194:

http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20040001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe

2333: 1379:

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.

2157: 1961: 968:

Although those opposing this nomination have tried to delete the other two songs, at least one will survive and the other will probably be redirected. In which case

2485: 2481: 2467: 2365: 2361: 2347: 2221: 2217: 2203: 2053: 2049: 2035: 1841: 1837: 1823: 936:, which confirms for us that when a song (or album) title is used more than once we do NOT rely on primary topic, but disambiguate all with the same same name. 2323: 1951: 974:(A "topic covered by Knowledge" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.) 2299: 1249: 358:

This article states song was written in Italy, though Spears herself claims it was written when she was in Germany, as she states in this live performance:

923:. It would not be inconsistent to move to Everytime (Britney Spears song). Foo song (Foo artist) probably applies to at least a third of all song articles. 78:, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 2453: 1253: 535:

In YOUR opinion... and I thought there was a local consensus that Primary Topic doesn't generally apply to items as transiently notable as songs. --

1917: 1783:

after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add

1424:. Despite the majority in support, Cúchullain is the only participant who has made a cohesive primary topic argument and it has not been rebutted. 1222:

I've restored it; as this has already been the subject of two RM discussions, it shouldn't be moved again without letting the community weigh in.--

75: 842:. It doesn't really matter that this is an aural topic, this is a written encyclopedia. So yeah, that's more than sufficient for disambiguation. 1359: 1334: 1288: 102: 94: 90: 67: 1935: 937: 1061:

of Britney Spears song. If there is a chance of many oppose votes, I will decide to withdraw the move request and will get another new one.

2544: 2142:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100807100709/http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/59873/chart-watch-extra-40-digital-song-milestones/

1458: 2180:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141031115333/http://sandrineguerrier.musicblog.fr/428137/classement-des-meilleurs-singles-pour-l-annee-2004/

1483:

alternative topics for the term, either with the space or without it, and this song doesn't seem exceptionally historically notable. Per

1411:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

238: 106: 2334:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140407085915/http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=05%2F11%2F2004&Format=1

1353: 691: 31:

The "music video" section of this article contains speculation and unconfirmed facts. Can somebody have a look and see if they agree.

2463:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2343:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2199:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2031:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1540: 171:— Because there are some articles that has a title "Everytime". When it is already moved, I will edit the article to redirect it to 2145: 2543:

Britney Spears said in her booklet that comes with the CD for "The Singles Collection" that "Everytime" debuted on May 22, 2004.

2183: 2158:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101211124520/http://www.mtv.co.uk/music/charts/official-uk-countdowns/britney-spears-official-top-20

2001: 1962:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150502063756/http://www.aria.com.au:80/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-100-singles-2004.htm

1229: 1151: 873:

for the direction to guidelines, it made me read them again (no sarcasm intended, it is always good to check from time to time).

1057:. Richhoncho is right and will get a vote of a newly proposed article. Since "Everytime" is not a common term and not totally a 643: 168: 2337: 2443: 1971: 1328: 1212: 1194: 676: 651: 377: 2324:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110622023739/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/musicnightlife/2004131515_aedispatch18.html

1991: 1981: 1952:

http://www.webcitation.org/64wvNA3FI?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aria.com.au%2Fpages%2Faria-charts-accreditations-singles-2004.htm

1556:- as per majority to move in last RM. Dozens of other subjects on this dab list (even without the second giant dab list at 2300:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120306031941/http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/contributors/259121/britney-revealed

2161: 1941: 1610: 905:. Not really relevant as both options are natural. but in general speech we refer to song and artist together to identify. 2011: 2528: 2408: 2264: 2096: 1274: 928:

AT, although a policy and not a guideline, devolves some "powers" down to specific quidelines, which in this case means

672: 647: 2167: 1965: 399:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

276:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

138:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2021: 977:

All the relevant policies and guidelines support the nomination. I cannot see any reason to oppose the nomination. --

2327: 2454:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121020191659/http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-12-02/music/saturday-night-at-the-nyla/

2303: 2131: 1264:

article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

880:

a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other; so use appropriate disambiguation techniques.

1700: 1402: 339:

write a song about Justin. The MTV article also confirms that "Everytime" had been completed when she said that.

2484:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2364:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2220:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2052:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1918:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120910035026/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/britney-spears/in-the-zone1.htm

1840:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

332: 1462: 1260:'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for 344: 208: 1680:. There are only three articles titled "Everytime" spelled this way, and this one is the clear primary topic. 779:

Absolutely I am saying that--for "everytime". That's not even a word in English. I did not say that I thought

86: 58: 2519: 2435: 2399: 2291: 2255: 2123: 2087: 1909: 1727: 1629: 1569: 713: 659: 242: 2457: 2151: 1955: 1936:

http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2003/11/21/Arts/New-Vibrations-2245747.shtml

1581:

since we're including irrelevant strength signifiers; per arguments above; ambiguity is not a good thing.

1673: 1058: 943: 686: 508: 504: 32: 2545:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yc-q2J6ffXo/Vbg-HCk30VI/AAAAAAAAVcg/_RkXvU9sTqk/s1600/Imagen%2B%25288%2529.jpg

2503:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2491: 2383:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2371: 2239:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2227: 2071:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2059: 1921: 1879: 1859:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1847: 1710: 1544: 1500: 1412: 1175: 1120: 1053:, since the other two song articles have the same title of the song name don't meet the requirements of 1034: 316: 225: 2434:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2290:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2122:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1908:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1791:

to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

549:"Primary Topic doesn't generally apply to items", thank you for this. "Generally" doesn't mean always. 185:

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with

1814: 1660: 1226: 1148: 1087: 982: 813: 766: 582: 540: 483: 365: 62:

is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under

2551: 1383: 947: 870: 848: 835: 793: 737: 631: 467: 340: 301: 112: 359: 2311: 1929: 1738: 1723: 1625: 1586: 1565: 1513: 1303: 1206: 1141: 1079: 1062: 996: 959: 889: 875: 839: 709: 655: 592: 550: 512: 450: 373: 288: 63: 2488: