Talk:My World (Justin Bieber EP)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

EP

According to chart rules, anything with 4 or less tracks or under 25 minutes running time is an EP. That makes this an album. - Addit (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Billboard appears to be tracking this album as an EP, hence its listing as "My World (EP)" at Billboard.com. It is less than 30 minutes long and is only seven tracks which is why it is considered an EP. –Chase (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Albums are yes, warranted on both their time length and track quantity, but you could have 6 or 7 tracks and it could equal-up to 25 minutes and still be considered an EP. Time length is usually in key in answer's cases. I'll example this; I don't know if many of you are metalheads, but look at Job for a Cowboy's Doom EP (which I own). Seven tracks and just under 28 minutes; if that was an album you're not getting much out of it. But albums can be around that time length and can be considered a full-length album if it has a large-amount of tracks to fit that time length in total. For example, See You Next Tuesday's Parasite is a full-length album and only equals up to 20 minutes in length, but being a grind band their songs are short (usually lasting right around a minute) and the album has enough tracks on it to be considered a full-length. Hope this cleared stuff up. • GunMetal Angel 14:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge My World (Part II) in this article

Hi, I noticed the article My World (Part II) covering the "second half" of this album was recently created. Most likely this will be counted as a separate album on the charts, but as there's very little information about this upcoming album/EP and the focus of this article seems to be on the album as a whole rather than its first part, would it not be best to merge the info from there to here for now? I personally think that would be the best option until details are made clearer and the release date of the new album comes closer. Chase wc ⁹¹ 08:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Against Merge- Even though these two albums are very close in release dates and seem to be a continuation of the first, I don't believe the albums to be merged. They should be kept separate and treated as two different pages.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, they're two different releases which will chart separately and will have separate reception. Sorafune +1 21:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I should note that I began this discussion assuming that Part II (now 2.0 apparently) would be a rerelease of this album. Since it now seems to appear as if it will definitely be its own album, this merge discussion is pretty irrelevant now. Of course, if it does end up being a rerelease, I would definitely support a merge to this page. –Chase (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Security

This page should be locked to ananomusy IPs. There has been alot of vandalism to the article.Scott i am 01:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Was Vandalized Again Last Night With Horrible Comments, It Should Be Protected (CK...... (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

I know there was a lot of vandilism on the article, but can't wikipedia unlock it? I just need to edit the infobox's chronology because I wanted to separate the albums by "Studio/Non-Studio album" in their chronology infoboxes since he has released enough material to have this done. I have done this process to eminem's EP, Studio albums & compilation albums and to hedley's albums (I jointed them all together because they have not released enough albums to separate them by infobox chronology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.224.139 (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Critical response

i believe that the critical response section should be either merged with the positive response section or deleted (or re-written if someone has any actual critical things to say) because it does not contain any critical reviews. I'm not saying it needs to have someone bashing justins work, just rename it.--66.32.167.153 (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word critical does not mean critical as in harsh, but critical as in critique and critic, meaning both positive, neutral and negative reviews.Candyo32 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Needs A Bit Of Work

I would do this myself but i don't have time right now. This article has a few issues.

Rolling Stone Review Is Dead Link, Needs To Be Removed/Replaced.
There Is About 4 Bare URLS, So Those Need To Be Corrected.
All aCharts Need To Be Removed And Replaced With Proper Links. ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with acharts? Can it not be used now? Candyo32 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No its not suppose to be used anymore. Ive been told by a few Admins on my Kesha articles not to use it cause it violates Copyrights Laws or something like that. Its easily replaceable though. ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 21:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not under the websites to avoid under manual of style WP:BADCHARTS. Acharts is one of those things where it depends on the reviewer and their opinion on certain things that you have to do to get the article passed. For example, I was told that Digital Spy was a bad source, then it turns out that it was verified for use. Candyo32 (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Right under that though look, WP:GOODCHARTS It says "Should Be Avoided On Good Articles And Featured Articles." We should work to remove them from all Bieber Articles ASAP, Before It Becomes An Issue, I Dont Want Them De-Listed. ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 21:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't even notice that, well somebody should tell the people who watch 4 Minutes (Madonna song) which is a featured. I might try to get to it soon, but I have multiple other projects I am trying to get finished first, but usually Hung Median carries most European markets. Candyo32 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The main editor knows, he's working to replace it. I'll work on the JB singles if you do the Albums. ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to get it done. And when you are finished, go vote to have the EP my work on the singles as a good topic! 21:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I Will As Soon As I Believe They All Pass, One Time Needed ALOT Of Cleanup. I Believe It's Done Now, Truthfully I Don't Know How One Time Passed The First Time lol. The Others Just Need Tweaking. ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 00:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Certification & End of year position

The album received Platinum in Germany for 200,000 copies sold. Would somebody please add that? source

The album was No. 34 on the YE-chart in Germany. source

--79.216.174.128 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Austrian certification

It's Platinum now source--79.216.212.86 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Austria

My World is No. 62 on the Year-End-Chart of 2011. Please add that! http://oe3.orf.at/charts/stories/albumyear/ --93.229.98.15 (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's already listed. Chzz ► 03:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My World (EP). 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/20130602195200/http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=69239 to http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=69239

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) 23:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on My World (EP). 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) 22:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)