Jump to content

Talk:Satellite (Lena Meyer-Landrut song)

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

Song credits

[edit]

Someone please include the detailed song credits (Recording engineer, Recorded at... etc) as stated on the CD. I don't have it. EnemyOfTheState|talk 19:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Song analysis

[edit]

I think an analysis of the melody would be interesting for the article in particular when you compare the notes from the slow version and the fast version. --Melly42 (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we are not allowed to do analyses here. If, say, some music magazine does one we can of course cite it. Janfrie1988 (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why it is original research to compare notes with each other? The Jennifer Braun version has other notes than the Lena-Meyer-Landrut version and that is a fact and no orginal research --Melly42 (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that the two versions contain different notes, yes. So you can include the sentence, "Meyer-Landrut and Braun sang two different arrangements of the song", and that's not original research, because it's non-controversial and unchallengeable. But as soon as we introduce analysis of the differences, like you're asking for, then it's original research, because then we're speculating as to the significance of the differences. Binabik80 (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. It is a result of your research until it has been published somewhere. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it: What do you think of the first paragraph of "Production and song selection" - wouldn't it qualify for original research as well? The source is just the musiv video. Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?

[edit]

Well, what's with the categorisation of this article? Stub? I would rather call it at least a B by now. Or what do the others here think? Janfrie1988 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well it still remains a stub because the most important part (the ESC) is still missing. So wait until the 30 May and than we can completeted this article. --Melly42 (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong page name

[edit]

The page should be moved from Satellite (Lena Meyer-Landrut song) to Satellite (European Song Contest song). It was performed not only bei Meyer-Landrut but also by Jennifer Braun. Both have hit the charts with the same song at the same time. Braun even sang the song as a world premiere. --Goodgirl - talk to me 08:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree --Melly42 (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the page should have been moved. The article is mainly about Lena Meyer-Landruts version, Jennifer Braun's song has hardly any encyclopaedic notability, certainly not in English speaking countries. If anything, the page has to be named (Eurovision Song Contest song), there is no "European Song Contest". Also, moving this page twice has made a mess of the links in Lena Meyer-Landrut. There now is double redirect for a links to this article. EnemyOfTheState|talk 15:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, Jennifer Braun performed the world premiere of this song at Our Star for Oslo and her version made number 32 in Germany. Okay the Lena-Meyer-Landrut version is much more successful and more notable but the song was written for the Eurovision Song Contest and not for Lena Meyer-Landrut alone --Melly42 (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the move. Song title (artist song) is a standard title. Many songs that have been charted in the versions of several artists have such titles. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jaan Prän and EnemyOfTheState. I don't think Jennifer Braun's version is relevant enough to be in the English Wikipedia. Not every song that ever charted in any country deserves its own article. What is more, "Eurovision Song Contest Song" still wouldn't describe Braun's version, since only Meyer-Landrut's version will be performed at ESC. If you wanted to cover both versions, you'd have to call it "Unser Star für Oslo Song" or whatever, but this would be very cumbersome indeed. I prefer the old version. Maybe we could include a sentence mentioning Braun's chart success, however? Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused ;) Do you prefer the current state (Satellite (European Song Contest song)), or do you agree with the two previous posts (page should be moved back to Satellite (Lena Meyer-Landrut song)? EnemyOfTheState|talk 21:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, the latter. My info on the "current state" was obviously outdated ;). Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I can't simply move the page back, because the new title already exists. The article will be forced to go through (potentially lengthy) Wikipedia:Requested moves. EnemyOfTheState|talk 22:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Melly42, If you think Braun's version deserves an article - create it and discuss relevance there. This article is about the version performed by Meyer-Landrut. Aside from all questions about relevance concerning Braun's version - there simply isn't enough content about Braun's version here to justify renaming it. Janfrie1988 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is case of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you only refer this song to Lena Meyer-Landrut this is not neutral. --Melly42 (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now we start getting weird. Until the unjustified move of the article its name clearly said that it treats the version performed by Meyer-Landrut. Accordingly and correctly, its content was thus about Meyer-Landrut's version. How on earth is this not neutral? Again: If you think that Braun's version also qualifies for Wikipedia:Notability you are free to start an article and call it "Satellite (Jennifer Braun Song)". Janfrie1988 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The convention is to title the article either after the original performer or the composer, whichever is more appropriate. This isn't any different from any cover version of any song, and doesn't require spcial handling. Cover versions do not get separate articles, they are placed in the article covering the original song.—Kww(talk) 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this arguably is a special case, since both versions of the song (which other than just the vocals also differ in several other respects) premiered on the same evening and both versions were sold and charted indepedepently from one another. You cannot really tell which version is the original and which one is the cover. So what do we do? As you rightly pointed out, according to the standard the article's name should be "Satellite (Nameofartist Song)" and not European or Eurovision song or whatever. Which artist's name should it be? Obviously I would go for Lena-Meyer Landrut, since her version is mentioned a lot more in the German media. Outside of Germany Braun's version is hardly ever mentioned. Moreover, Meyer-Landrut will represent Germany in the ESC and for that reason alone it should be her name in the article's title. Judging by the sources, the only thing that can really be said about Braun's version is that it charted in Germany for one week and reached a peak position of 32. And this is already in the article. Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List it under the composer's name then: Satellite (Julie Frost-John Gordon song) is neutral. The current title isn't wholly unreasonable, either.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since there is no European Song Contest, only a Eurovision Song Contest, the current title is incorrect even in this regard. I would still keep Lena Meyer-Landrut song, however, since it is her version that is the German entry to the contest and that broke several sales/download records. Her version fulfills the notability criteria and is mentioned in the media a lot, whereas Braun's version is just a single that charted in Germany for one week and is thereby not necessarily notable in the English Wikipedia. What is most important, however is to be clear and precise. Everyone knows what this article is about when Meyer-Landrut's name is in the title. If its "Julie Frost and John Gordon" most non-German readers will not instantly recognise it, say, on the disambiguation page. Janfrie1988 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tnank you JanFrie. This is a good point. So, you can move it --Melly42 (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys Lena Meyer-Landrut offically sings the song. she won both Unser Star für Oslo and Esc 2010 with the song and i'ts on her album My Cassette Player.Lena offically sings it.BellaFan262

RIAA deletes Youtube video

[edit]

Do you think this might be of interest? I mean the first video (not the the one in the ESC channel) was released by Brainpool at Youtube (at 17 March). It got at least 5 Million clicks and it was deleted by the RIAA due to an incorrect assumed copyright infringement in late March. So what has the RIAA to do with a German video? --Melly42 (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this one. Personally I tend to think that it is not relevant but yet 5 million views is quite something. I think it is quite a rare occasion that a 5 million view video is deleted from youtube. I don't know. If (and only if) you can find a source (i.e. newspaper article or so) that comments on the deletion it would be okay to include it as long as there is no strong opposition here, I suppose. Janfrie1988 (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
okay Lena's video is back --Melly42 (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release history

[edit]

As long as Satellite hasn't been released in any other countries, I'm not sure the releases history needs needs to be there. It's rather unremarkable at the moment, and it's already covered in the text. Plus, it's not even correct, in both Austria and Switzerland the song was not immediately available on 13 March. EnemyOfTheState|talk 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will take it out for now. If anyone has objections, well be bold!. Janfrie1988 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Song instead of Lena Meyer-Landrut Song?

[edit]

Since Lena Meyer-Landrut seems to go for Lena as her stage name and both Satellite and her album My Cassette Player are released under that name, wouldn't it be more correct if the article was moved to "Satellite (Lena song)". Please don't just move the page but discuss first (!) since moving it back is quite troublesome. Janfrie1988 (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Melly42 (talk)
How is Satellite released under the name 'Lena', the artist name on the CD cover is 'Lena Meyer-Landrut'. Also, I don't think there has been any confirmation she plans to ditch her last name entirely, or that she only plans to use Lena as a stage name (other than the album cover). EnemyOfTheState|talk 18:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the ESC she will officially perform as "Lena". Yet you are right that it says "Lena Meyer-Landrut" on the CD cover. However, this is due to the fact that she "changed her mind" (or her management) over time and only later decided to take Lena as her stage name both for her ESC performance and for her album (which is likely to feature Satellite as well). Shouldn't we go with the most recent development? Should we go with the name that most people will recognise? Is the name on the single or in the esc more important? If we go with the single, should we move the article as soon as she releases her album (as Lena) with Satellite on it? I'm ambiguous about this. Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this article is about the single (and her name on the single was Lena Meyer-Landrut), I just don't see why we should rush to move this page again, only because of an album cover. We don't really know whether she intends to use Lena exclusively, or if that presumed stage name will actually succeed in the (German) public. EnemyOfTheState|talk 22:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to "rush moving the page", that's why I post it for discussion ;). Do you know by any chance what the naming conventions in this case are? Should we use the name she is most commonly known by, or the name that people will recognise most easily (not necessarily the same), or the name she used when she published the single, or the name she used when she published the album the single is from, or the the name she used when doing the most widely watched performance of this song (which will be ESC), or the name that matches the name used in her main Wikipedia article? I think its too easy to just refer too the cover of the single, since in other contexts (and for the moment as an artist) she is known as Lena, in case of the ESC even in relation to "Satellite". Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there are guidelines for something so specific, generally article names should comply with WP:COMMONNAME. I still don't think it's necessary to move the page (at least right now, even before the album is released), but this is such a technical issue, I don't care too much either way really. EnemyOfTheState|talk 16:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, the intention by Lena and by Stefan Raab (her producer), is, that her surname Meyer-Landrut is difficult to pronounce for non-German speakers and that the name Lena is much easier to remember for people from abroad. It is similar to Nicole (the ESC-winner of 1982) whose real name is Nicole Hohloch (rather difficult to pronounce for people from the UK) but left her surname for an international career. --Melly42 (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Melly, I absolutely think that you are right. But I also think that your point (and Raab's or Brainpool's motivation or whatever, for that matter) is no argument for either moving the article or not doing it. ;) I think EnemyOfTheState has rightly pointed towards WP:COMMONNAME. From my personal impression I think Lena Meyer-Landrut is still a lot more common than Lena, even internationally. Let's see if she goes with Lena on the long run and if she is going to be referenced as that in the future. I'm still not completely decided, but I tend towards keeping the article name as it is at the moment. It's always healthy to have a discussion about it, however. ;) Janfrie1988 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i agree, and we should not forget that there other singers called Lena (e.g. Lena (Horne) from Cuba)in the Wikipedia. So the title Satellite (Lena Meyer-Landrut song) should stay. --Melly42 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that "Lena" is not a particularly uncommon name, I suspect the use of her full name at first may have been to avoid the kind of problems encountered by Daniel Küblböck when his first single was released under the name "Daniel K.", the rights to which were already taken, and which resulted in a cash payment and apology. It may have taken some time for the legal department to ensure that she had the right to perform as just "Lena". ProhibitOnions (T) 12:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahasz

[edit]

Same here: "Editor's Choice" by Mahasz (Hungary) is a critics list rather than a reflection of actual sales or airplay. It is listed under WP:BADCHARTS and should not be used. Please stop adding "Editor's Choice" positions to the article. Thank you :). Janfrie1988 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube views

[edit]

I see the mention of the youtube views has been removed. I agree with the reasoning that Wikipedia is not a youtube rating service. However, extraordinarily high numbers of views are imo worth mentioning. 15 million views are extraordinarily much for an ESC contestant prior to the final and afaik even far more than Alexander Rybak's "Fairytale" got last year prior to the final. Opinions? Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a single vendor number, though: we don't include ranks at Amazon, sales from iTunes, charts from single radio networks, or any parallel case. If you could somehow show the total views from every source, or reference charts that combined multiple sources, that would be one thing. This is a single figure from a single vendor.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is actually an important point that it is not possible at the moment to evaluate combined views - which is why I think a youtube reference is legitimate. To me it would be a distortion to hide from the readers the attention "Satellite" gets on the internet or, in this case, the most world's most popular video platform. Again, the article on Rybaks' "Fairytale" also has a reference to youtube, albeit to a youtube "award" and not view numbers. Janfrie1988 (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of things in these Eurovision articles that shouldn't be. I still don't see the difference between this and, for example, iTunes downloads. That's undoubtedly the most popular music download service in the world, yet its chart has been on WP:BADCHARTS since inception.—Kww(talk) 03:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kww's reasoning that Youtube numbers are illegitimate here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, I'll take them out, unless there are others who are also of the opinion that they should stay... Janfrie1988 (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record and because the youtube-views have been deleted "per talk page discussion": I am still of the opinion that it is legitimate to include them, as I don't necessarily think that the iTunes chart (which is a sales chart!) and youtube views (which are free of charge) can be lumped together just like that. What is more: "Youtube views" can almost be used synonymously with "video views on the Internet", while this is certainly not true for iTunes sales and total sales. Moreover, there are countless incidents of extraordinary numbers of youtube views mentioned in articles, just search for "youtube views" in Wikipedia. In our case, I have just agreed to take them out because there was opposition from two major editors, namely Kww and Jaan Pärn. If most of the other editors to this article are of a different opinion than you, we clearly have to rethink our policy. I would be particularly interested in the opinions of Melly42 and EnemyOfTheState. Janfrie1988 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't care too much one way or the other, even though I do believe the YouTube views are exceptional enough to be noteworthy here. Maybe a compromise could be to only include it, if a reliable publication has mentioned it in an article. EnemyOfTheState|talk 17:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take them out. First reason, there are many satellite versions at Youtube (e.g. the one with Alexander Rybak at TV total) or the ESC video, second reason, The ESC is over so the views have lost there notability or significance. --Melly42 (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then. *shrugs* Janfrie1988 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

600,000 sales

[edit]

The Danish press reports that "Satelitte" has sold over 600,000 copies in Germany, is this really true? 3 x Gold is "only" 450,000 according to wiki's own article --z33k (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation please. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 3 x Gold is at least 450,000. It could be 599,999 and still be 3 x Gold. I imagine it has sold a few copies in the last few days ;) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the Eurovision final, it's generally believed that the song had sold between 600,000 - 700,000 copies in Germany. The actual sales certification will always lag behind quite substantially (weeks, with lesser known artists even months). Her album has also reached gold status, but has not officially been certified yet. EnemyOfTheState|talk 20:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jaan Pärn: For example "Dansk sang vandt Melodi Grand Prix" and "Selvlært århusianer grand prix-hitter i Tyskland". --z33k (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the 600,000 figure (i. e. double platinum) is confirmed on www.valicon.de Valicon is the producer company for the song Sattellite --Melly42 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should include it, then. However, I have the suspicion that this source is not enough for Harout72. ;) I'll ask him. Janfrie1988 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem including the sales figure, but the certification shouldn't be added until you can verify it with a source from the certifying agency.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be confusing, then, to have two seemingly contradictory statements in the article? (600K+ sales but only 3xGold) Janfrie1988 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sales" and "certifications" are two separate topics, and frequently disagree. Certifications are frequently based on shipments, not sales, and there are cases of songs certifying at several times their sales levels. There are other cases where some kinds of sales (ringtones, for example) don't count towards certifications. It's inherently confusing, but it isn't appropriate for us to decide when something is certified at a given level.—Kww(talk) 16:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take this message serious http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15956. The figure 450,000 is from mid May. Now we have almost End of June. And the second thing is Satellite had its second run on number one at the German Charts after the Eurovision Song Contest --Melly42 (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the certification is give for the label. I've got a mail from the GEMA database that the 600,000 is already reached. So the update of the database will be within the next days. --Melly42 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles chart macro

[edit]

I don't like the idea of the singles chart macro. It makes things less flexible and a lot more complicated, imo. Moreover, it doesn't work. It lists the wrong sources. For the time being, the chart positions for Norway and Germany (!) are de facto unsourced, as they are not given in the sources used. Is there any possibility to insert different sources manually? The official source (!) for the Norwegian position, for instance? Or a working one for Germany? Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see there has been general discussions about this already. Just my personal opinion: I would be against those macros even as a matter of principle. Macros always make it unclear to the unexperienced user how things work and keep him/her from easily changing single aspects about it. It is way easier to learn to work with Wikipedia syntax than to learn to build macros. To me it seems like a way of keeping "unwanted" edits by unexperienced users "out" and ensure "things are neat and in the right way". It way well be, however, that there are other sources than the standard ones to be used in certain cases or it may even be that the programmed sources don't work. In other words: If we use macros, they should work without any doubt. Since they don't in Germany's and Norway's case here, I'll take them out until they do. Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's designed to be mixed with manual entries, so go ahead for Germany. The problem with Germany is that "/USFO" field, and the Wikipedia software doesn't link it properly even when it's correct. There's a fix pending in the next release of the Wikimedia software. Norway is just a bit slow in updating. I'll put in an option for Norway to force it to the official archive if the year and week are provided. I've already got that logic in for the Dutch Top 40, which has the same problem of excessive delay. Give me a few hours.
When songs are charting, {{singlechart}} can be a bit irritating. Once things are stable, it helps a lot: if there's an expansion of singlechart available and the link works, you know that you are on a reliable archive of the source. That keeps people from doing things like sourcing Italy and Bulgaria to acharts.us (which archives unofficial charts).—Kww(talk) 21:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you are programming those? Well, thanks for all the effort. ;) I just don't see the point of it. Just copying and pasting the syntax from somewhere and editing in the details is certainly not that much more of an effort, plus it is way easier to be flexible and react to specific cases, broken references, etc. Also, all the "bugfixing" stuff is not necessary here. The most important problem I have with too many macros, though, is - as I already mentioned - that they leave their workings unexplained and are harder to grasp than the syntax, which certainly scares off the newbies (it even annoys me, to be honest). To me it has an elitist "this is the correct way, don't mess with it" air to it, which certainly contradicts Wikipedia's spirit ;). Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My watchlist stands at 10.175 articles right now. Monitoring all those for chart vandalism is pretty exhausting, and standardisation helps a lot. The real purpose of the macro is to standardize formatting so that we can enlist bots to fight the vandalism. Free-form citations and chart listing formats can't be monitored automatically. A regular syntax can.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point. Its just sad to once more trade off a little freedom and flexibility for more security and stability. Well, I guess as long as we don't introduce flagged revisions or crap like that I will be able to cope with it ;). Btw, are there really that many cases of vandalism by autoconfirmed users? Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A surprising amount. The advantage of semi-protection is that it slows the sockpuppeteer down significantly, and makes it easier to revert his changes as they all get grouped under the account name. If I don't do it, you get accounts like Special:Contributions/Milimrocks. The account is created to hide the IP address, and then one edit is performed. Can't tie it to the sockpuppeteer without a checkuser, and the checkuser can't be run on the basis of one edit.—Kww(talk) 22:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this seriously starts to annoy me. Someone has just taken out a chart position - not because it was uncorrect but because the macro wasn't working and displayed a source which didn't back up the position (yet), while there was another source (the official one!) that did. Why are these macros working with outdated, second hand sources and not with the original, official ones? The charts by Hung Medien might be nice for an overview but I would certainly always prefer the original source over a second-hand one. I have also left some notes about the erroneous Wikilinks the macros create on Kww's talk page. No offense, Kww, I really appreciate the effort you put into this but the macros clearly still have some issues. Until they work properly and reliably, I am going to take them out to avoid risking the deletion of chart positions. Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not clear, the {{singlechart}} template is supposed to be a useful tool to improve our editing efficiency and standardize the reference citations. I find it very cool to be able to whack in the template with a position number, an artist name and song title, and after a quick check I am done and can move on. I don't have to type out the (mostly-the-same-but-not-quite-identical) references every time. But I do have to check the reference to make sure it says what I think it does. If the ref and my knowledge (from some other source) don't match, then I either adjust or replace the template. Where the template is not helpful, I don't use it. Where it appears to be broken, I report the errors. Kww is working on it and improving it steadily. But it will never check the references for us; it only generates them. The responsibility lies with editors, whether they use the template or enter refs manually.
BTW, several of the charts have different forms to aim for different sources. The UK charts can point to different achives, and the Danish, Dutch, and Norwegian (and maybe Finnish, I don't remember) have conditional checks built in. The point is to get to the most reliable and official sources, as best as programmatically possible. A site like Billboard's, though, may not always show what it ought to show, and it's as primary and official as they come. There'll always be problems, so we just have to do our best. Use the templates where they help you, but go manual when that's better for you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can subscribe to most of that. I am also thankful for your notice to all editors that macros can only be used when their source is up to date and working. One question: Is it programmatically possible to use the original charts instead of the Hung Medien ones? I would certainly prefer that. Janfrie1988 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not the best guy to ask that, but I can tell you what I think.
  • I think we tend to use original charts where we can, but go to Hung when that's the better choice. Consider: a lot of the "original" sources you are talking about put up either this week's chart or show positions only while the song/artist is actively charting; in either case the positions we try to report in WP articles may disappear from the referenced URL at the next update. Australia's ARIA site only ever shows the current top 50. That'll show old peaks, but only as long as the song's there. (Although there is also a template to get to ARIA's well-hidden archives of Top-100 chart report, which you might use.) The UK official peaks might be available online, or maybe not, depending on song position and how the chart publisher is restricting access, but the templates allow flexibility in pointing to different archives.
  • The Hung Medien sites offer the following advantages: they all look the same, so it's easy for us to find info on the French site, even if we've only been to the Austrailian and NZ versions (and don't even speak French); they give indicators of peaks from other charts (it's possible to use a swedishcharts ref to support a Belgian peak); they offer good programmable access to the pages we need to find (just an artist and song name, no magic number needed); the pages load quickly, compared to, say, Billboard, whose pages never load in less than 30 seconds for me, and sometimes take more than 2 minutes – each; the Hung Medien sites are reliable archives, AFAICT, which don't disappear or hide their data from one week to another; the lag time is usually quite short behind the official charts; and they are the official sites, at least for Belgium's Ultratop charts. Only once in all the time I used Hung archive sites to cite claimed peaks have I found a numeric discrepancy (apart from normal lag), and I'm not sure which source ended up being the right one.
  • I think the main problem is that we can point to original chart publishers while the song is climbing up, but we'll need to find the archive a few weeks after it starts to drop, and use that ref for the entire remaining lifetime of the article (or peak claim). The template tries to point to non-volatile sources. I don't believe Kww would point to a site he didn't consider reliable; he also tends to maintain the list at WP:BADCHARTS. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

[edit]

Oh, and while we're at it: Is it really necessary to semi-protect this article until September? Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtinadbest/Archive shows how long we've been having socking problems with Xtinadbest. It's time to build a little stronger wall until he goes away, which I do by semiprotecting every article he edits after I remove all of his edits. There's a handful of sockpuppeteers that I take that approach with. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ItHysteria/Archive are two more. Long term banned editors that don't give up.—Kww(talk) 22:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess you know what you are doing. Interesting to see how enduring vandalism can be. Just imagine how productive they could be in the same time ;) Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rybak version & German World Cup version & background singers

[edit]

Don't you think that it might be interesting to mention the name of the four background singers in Oslo, the version with Alexander Rybak at TV total and the fact that there is a German World Cup version which became a huge hit at Youtube. --Melly42 (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have independent sources, why not? Janfrie1988 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is one video, where Lena is mentioning the forenames of the background singers, but from the faces I am knowing, that these are Maya Saban, Anji Hinke, Cheri Kedida, and Grace Risch. Referring to the Alexander Rybak version at Tv total (25 May 2010) there are independent sources in German (and as far as i know even in Norge). Referring to the German World Cup version, there is an English article at the German news website Spiegel about the song Schland Oh Schland. --Melly42 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm afraid we can do nothing about the background singers if we do not have a source apart from your memory :). Also, I don't know if the Rybak version is notable. Maybe it would be if it was sold independently or included as a b-side on one of her singles or so. At the moment, however, it is just one (slightly altered) out of countless performances of "Satellite".
I agree concerning the World Cup cover version by Uwu Lena, however. Initially it was just a joke by some students but after Brainpool, Raab and Meyer-Landrut became aware of its success on youtube they offered Uwu Lena a record contract and the cover will now be sold independently and is quite likely to reach a high chart position in Germany. What is more, it has been mentioned by numerous major newspapers in Germany and even on the French FIFA website (in French). I don't know if it deserves an own article here on en but I think it is certainly alright to mention it in this article. Opinions? Kww? Janfrie1988 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it should be mentioned under cover versions here in this article --Melly42 (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Charts

[edit]

Can someone add that the song reached 7 on the Russian Digital Tracks Chart? source: http://2m-online.ru/news/detail.php?ID=5646 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablitto (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for the info. However, our article on Russian Airplay Chart says that the only official Russian charts are found at toplist.ru, and I cannot find a position for Meyer-Landrut there. Still, the article has no sources and it would be nice if someone could help out here. Janfrie1988 (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is just diffrent type of chart based on digital downloads. Tophit chart based on airplay of a songs at russian radio. Mentioned Russian digital tracks chart is the first digital chart published officialy by 2m-online.ru, which also provides with info bout album sales in Russia and used as the only one source in wikipedia. The diffrence between charts is like between Billboard Digital single sales chart and Billboard Airplay hot 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablitto (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello From Germany =) (Charts)

[edit]

Georgia: Rank 1 ( http://ogwtt.blogspot.com/2010/06/04062010-10062010.html ) Mathias Wiench 13:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.145.69 (talk)

Swedish Certification?

[edit]

The official charts' web site that provides the 'sverige topplistan' says that 'Satellite' was certified 'Gold' in Sweden, but there isn't a specific link ( http://www.sverigetopplistan.se/ ; Currently, 'Satellite' is on position 13 and there is a 'Gold' image that says 'Guld' when you click on it.) Excuse my bad English, I'm from Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maylah94 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Music Charts

[edit]

Polish Airplay Chart - Lena is #5. http://www.zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/nielsen/top5.php 31.07. - 06.08.2010 - please, add this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.39.25 (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we are only adding the official charts. --Melly42 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is official: Polish Music Charts. and you can see "polish airplay by nielsen" in the good charts in wikipedia. http://www.zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/nielsen/top5.php?idlisty=125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.58.130 (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Braun

[edit]

Guys is she REALLY relevant.Just a woman who recorded the song and sang it at USFO. Really. If she REALLY needs to be mentioned either a short sentence or her own article.--BellaFan262 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

her version of Satellite made number #32 in the German single charts. So this a relevant cover version. --Melly42 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes But either a short sentence or her own article.--Bella##Fan##262 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

better is to rewrite the whole section as "notable cover versions", as we have not only the Jennifer Braun version but also the version by Uwu Lena and by Stefan Raab. --Melly42 (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YES and there is also a German World Cup and Alexander Ryback version. So the page is "Satellite (Lena Meyer Landrut song)" With a notable covers section in the article.

And we dont need jenifur braun's cover art do we?

Can Somebody fix that? (I don't know how to) --Bella##Fan##262 (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Satellite (Lena Meyer-Landrut 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) 05:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Satellite (Lena Meyer-Landrut 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) 16:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Satellite_(Lena_Meyer-Landrut_song)&oldid=1207107759"