Talk:I Am... Sasha Fierce/Archive 1

Unsourced

• Knowles reportedly started working on her third studio album in December of last year.
• During the recording of the album, Knowles also recorded a cover of Billy Joel's "Honesty", which was released in June 2008 on a Japanese CD celebrating the tenth-year anniversary of Destiny's Child.

--Efe (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Video Phone is set to be the final single off her album . The Song has already had major radio airplay for the past few months. There will also be a remix to the song that features artists The-Dream, T-Pain, Ludacris, Missy Elliot, & Jeremih. The video will be shot sometime around the end of June, at a hotel in Los Angelas.[citation needed] NOTE that the video is part two of the "Diva" video.

IkeMuotoh (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC) - Not sure where this information was gotten from...Sweet Dreams isn't even out yet!!!

I'm still waiting on that The Dream, T-Pain, Ludacris, Missy Elliot, and Jeremih remix! LMAO! 98.199.171.182 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You my phone star. And I'm happy when my light's flashing cuz you are my receiver. Hubba hubba. Honey baby you so sexy that you should win an Oscar. (User talk:djenviybaby009) 00:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)DJENVIYBABY009

The single's pages

Why the pages for If I Were a Boy and Single Ladies keep getting deleted? The tracks have already been released, there's much information about them, so what's the problem with the pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.41.67 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

They fail WP:NM; they have to chart to merit an article. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 21:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats stupid! theres loads of pages in songs that are either unreleased or not charted yet that haven't been deleted.Wneedham02 (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not stupid. If you would, direct me to these songs on my talk page please. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 20:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay I got your proof,I was looking at almost ALL of the Khia singles, half of them never charted, and 1 is a sentence long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.48.114 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, every album single related article should be delete b/c those articles are ALWAYS created weeks before they chart, whether its sales or airplay. To quote notability exactly, "Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." I say combine both IIWAB and SL(PAROI) into one article. 64.140.0.3 (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"They fail WP:NM; they have to chart to merit an article." – VERY poor argument. From a random pick, see "Suga Mama", "Across the Universe", "Aesthetics of Hate", "Put On Your White Sombrero", "Whiplash". The list goes on and on... 210.4.232.57 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Otherstuff exists" – also a poor argument. DiverseMentality linked to the notability guideline for songs, and listed the one inclusion criterion which will in all likelihood be the first to apply for this song.
In detail: the basic inclusion guideline is at WP:Notability. Derived from that is WP:MUSIC#Songs, where it says that "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable". This does not override the basic notability guideline, but it is broadly used as an extension for songs since a charted song will almost automatically gain significant coverage in reliable sources.
The only song from your list with questionable notability is Put On Your White Sombrero, all others pass WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC. --Amalthea^Talk 16:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In all, using notability is a very poor argument b/c no editor abides by it. They are not using WP:OTHERSTUFF as an argument. What they are saying is you had no problem with A so you should have no problem with B. As another editor stated, "single" articles are always created weeks before that even chart and they do get this commotion. I don't understand why editors want to enforce Wiki policies for one particular subject yet not the others. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, both singles have now charted. Can anyone PLEASE put the singles pages on back again??? Thanks. Rub rb (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. It's not deleted, or redirected, as long as it charted. --Efe (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The new Kanye West single, Heartless, already has a page for it even though it has not charted, I don't see then why couldn't Beyoncé: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartless_(Kanye_West_song) Anyway, all of this songs would eventually chart and we know it, so I just don't see the point of deleting the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.15.248 (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"If I Were A Boy" controversy

Since there is no article yet for the above song, it might be worth noting in this article the controversy surrounding this song. Check out http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,437442,00.html and scroll down to Beyonce's 'Stolen' New Hit Record.↔NMajdan•talk 12:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait a bit since at this point, all sources I find are based on that one FOX news story, and we should be careful with it. If it gets picked up by other reliable sources then sure. --Amalthea^Talk 16:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree as ive heard that she never stole it, it was lent to her as a demo only but she insisted on using it. Wneedham02 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The song was ~in no way stolen... This guy, Gad, had the rights of the song he had co-written with BC Jean. As she was not publishing it they decided to sell it to any well-known artists to perform and record the song. Rub rb (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When FOX news wrote it, nothing to worry. They always publish such articles. Their review was even criticized in one of my Beyonce-related FAs. --Efe (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cover of I Am...Sasha Fierce

The covers of standard and deluxe edition of the album "I Am...Sasha Fierce" have been released. If I've permise, I upload those covers. Thanks --Dindo94 (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You may ask the admin to allow you to add the image. --Efe (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Or is there an admin in here? --Dindo94 (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but you can trace the admin who protected the page. Yeah, when its a commercial site, hardly its reliable. This post prompted one user to move the page and protect it. --Efe (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The covers you are referring to came from Wal-Mart (online) and were later removed by Wal-Mart less than one hour after they appeared on the site, thus they can only be deemed "fake" until multiple retailers or Columbia Records reveal an official cover. Alkclark (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you aren't right. Them don't have the Wal-Mart. Go to this website (It's italian, but you must just see the covers) [1] --Dindo94 (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 05:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Track #9 on Disc 2 "Why Don't You Love Me" was produced by The Bama Boyz

Please edit Track #9 on Disc 2 "Why Don't You Love Me," which was produced by The Bama Boyz. Caine name should not be attributed to this song. Only (B. Knowles, S. Knowles, and Bama Boyz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyTavison72 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I Am... Tracklistings

Well I was looking through the Australia Sony BMG b2b. And discovered that the standard edition of "I Am..." (listed as I Am...sasha Fierce) only features 2 CDs, one of them with 6 tracks, the other with 5.

SIDE SEQ
TITLE ISRC
1 1 If I Were A Boy (Album Version) USSM10803202
1 2 Halo USSM10804556
1 3 Disappear USSM10804557
1 4 Broken-hearted Girl USSM10804727
1 5 Ave Maria USSM10804728
1 6 Satellites USSM10804752

SIDE SEQ TITLE ISRC
2 1 Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It) (Album Version) USSM10803760
2 2 Radio USSM10804754
2 3 Diva USSM10804755
2 4 Sweet Dreams USSM10804756
2 5 Video Phone USSM10804757

I'm not sure if this should be added, because they also have listed "I Am..." Limited Edition (listed as I Am...sasha Fierce - Deluxe Edition) and features the tracklisting on this wikipedia page but without the track 9 on the second CD.

SIDE SEQ TITLE ISRC
1 1 If I Were A Boy (Album Version) USSM10803202
1 2 Halo USSM10804556
1 3 Disappear USSM10804557
1 4 Broken-hearted Girl USSM10804727
1 5 Ave Maria USSM10804728
1 6 Smash Into You USSM10804751
1 7 Satellites USSM10804752
1 8 That's Why You're Beautiful USSM10804753

SIDE SEQ TITLE ISRC 2 1 Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It) (Album Version) USSM10803760
2 2 Radio USSM10804754
2 3 Diva USSM10804755
2 4 Sweet Dreams USSM10804756
2 5 Video Phone USSM10804757
2 6 Hello USSM10804758
2 7 Ego USSM10804759
2 8 Scared Of Lonely USSM10804760

Hmm... I'm not sure whats up with it, but I included the codes incase you didn't believe me.

Anyway the Australian release date is set at 15th of November according to SonyBMG Australia B2B.

TheRevolution7 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the new collapsed track listings are better than any other track lists in Wikipedia. Specially that the album is available in so many different versions now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfarhat (talk • contribs) 07:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Title: I Am... Sasha Fierce

The official title is "I Am... Sasha Fierce". Even itunes has a pre-order page that says the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getluv (talk • contribs) 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Because the covers still only say "I Am..." Ian-sama (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OFFICAL ALBUM TITLE AND TRACKLISTING

This is the official album titles and tracklistings from "Music World Entertainment" website [2]

Beyoncé - I Am... Sasha Fierce (Deluxe Edition)
Disc 1:

1. If I Were A Boy
2. Halo
3. Disappear
4. Broken-Hearted Girl
5. Ave Maria
6. Smash Into You
7. Satellites
8. That's Why You're Beautiful
9. Save The Hero (iTunes Exclusive)
10. If I Were A Boy (iTunes Video)

Disc 2:

1. Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)
2. Radio
3. Diva
4. Sweet Dreams
5. Video Phone
6. Hello
7. Ego
8. Scared Of Lonely
9. Why Don't You Love Me [Pre-Order Only]
10. Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It) [iTunes Video]

Beyoncé - I Am... Sasha Fierce (Standard Edition)
Disc 1:

1. If I Were A Boy
2. Halo
3. Disappear
4. Broken-Hearted Girl
5. Ave Maria
6. Satellites

Disc 2:

1. Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)
2. Radio
3. Diva
4. Sweet Dreams
5. Video Phone

Wneedham02 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

iTunes & Walmart pre-orders

In addition to the previous track-listing sections (both from official sources), we now have the following pre-order links on Beyoncé's official US website:

• iTunes: Deluxe edition; Standard edition (from an iTunes email; the LinkSynergy ones on her site are blacklisted by Wikipedia).
• Walmart (physical CD): Deluxe edition; Standard edition.

Also, Walmart's newly-revamped MP3 site has it available for pre-order: Deluxe edition; Standard edition.

It should be noted that all of these sources confirm that the entire album (NOT just one disc) will be called I Am...Sasha Fierce, AND there will be two different versions, both double-CDs (though the standard edition would likely fit on one CD).

With this new information, someone who has the time to work it up properly should request that the page be unprotected, or at least changed to semi-protected so a registered Wikipedian can update it. --RBBrittain (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Title and album covers (but not track listings) are now also confirmed at Amazon.com: Deluxe edition; Standard edition. --RBBrittain (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

The album will be released in two double-disc versions

Does this mean two different CDs, or is it referring to the standard and deluxe editions?

---Shadow (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the "two" means the Deluxe and Standard, and double-disc refers to the 2 CDs.

TheRevolution7 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Beyonce & Solange World Tour 2009

It has recently been confirmed that Solange will be touring with Beyonce throughout all of her 110-date world tour next year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheapertunes (talk • contribs) 14:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What?

Where has the page gone? How come all the info has been deleted? Wneedham02 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, amazing how far some IPs can go. I've restored the content. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 16:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I still see no information. Is anyone else still having this problem? {1345 Spark} - Nov.6, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.95.65 (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If I Were A Boy/Single Ladies

Should the articles have a slash between them because "Single Ladies" hasn't been released international? It's not a double a-side. Charmed36 (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC) It is like that because they were released at the same time, she is releasing two singles at a time. One from each CD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.69.93 (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RELEASE DATE IN PHILIPPINES

can someone post the release date of I am... Sasha fierce on the main article here is the article from sony BMG philippines about the release date of the album here http://www.sonybmg.com.ph/index.php/artists/album/13/106 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlaws001 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added it. DiverseMentality 04:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

South African Release date needs updating!

Hi, hi live in South Africa and has just bought the deluxe edition at one of our local stores. They received them yesterday and they where on the shelves today. 18 November is thus the official release date not February, please will someone update it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlsteenkamp (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. DiverseMentality 18:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Release Date In Canada

Hello, this article states that this album comes out on Dec. 8 in Canada. However, today is November 18, and I Am...Sasha Fierce was available in stores-particularly HMV, where I purchased mine earlier today. If someone could correct that small error (which would stop the confusion with us Canadians), that would be great. --Skye 0913 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. DiverseMentality 23:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sales and Positions Table

Why a table of sales, positions and certifications has not been created yet??? The album has already charted in Japan so I think it must be in this page. Rub rb (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tables are only used when the album has already charted to various charts, a way of organizing of the facts. But I think someone has created it already. --Efe (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Critical reviews

The reviews that I have read (which happened to be the links in the infobox) are actually mixed to negative. Yet the article says the reviews have been generally positive. I'm confused. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We will be adding some more positive. According to review aggregator metacritic, the album has received generally positive review. --Efe (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

UK album chart

Has the album really charted so low in the UK album chart? Well this is quite a shock? "Legolas" (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why isnt there a singles section

Why isnt there a singles section........i think there should be one........can someone add it, i would but the page is protected........

i was thinking something like this:

Singles

From I Am:

• "If I Were a Boy":The first single from I Am... peaked at #3 on the Billboard Hot 100.

From Sasha Fierce:

• "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)":The first single from Sasha Fierce reached #1 on the Billboard Hot 100, giving Knowles' her fifth number-one single.

Track listing format

Would anyone be opposed to formatting the track listing like this? DiverseMentality 03:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Halo

Why isn't there a page about Halo? There is also a page about Diva. --It's Flo (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Halo" hasn't appeared on the charts and there is no release date. Charmed36 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Smash into You & Scared of Lonely

In the song booklet of my Deluxe Edition Beyoncé is confirmed as a songwriter of "Smash into You" and "Scared of Lonely", why isn't it included in the article? --It's Flo (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Now added. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering why somebody undid that. I'm re-adding it. --It's Flo (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No concrete idea why, but I believe some people don't accept the fact that Knowles did co-write these songs. --Efe (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Smash Into You" was actually orginally called "Smack Into You" and was actually writtemn by "Jon McLaughlin". Matthew Knowles purchased the recording rights to the song and hence it was re-listed. Beyonce does have writing credits on this song, she turned "Smack" into "Smash" thats all. This is why there is controversy over it.

oh and by the way cristyl is the sole writer of "Scared of Lonely" beyone proof-read the single thats all.(Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Singles release date

pleae stop changing the October 8, 2008 single release date for if i were a boy and single ladies....the single release date shown for diva and halo are the radio release date, so the same should apply for single ladies and if i were a boy.....

Anywhere But Home (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WRITING CREDITS

Can people stop deleting Knowles' name from certain songs writing credits mainly "Smash into You", "Scared of Lonely" & "If I Were a Boy". I know some people cannot accept that Knowles has writing credit but as it says it in the album booklet it should be kept that way on here, thanks. Wneedham02 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Her name is not on the songs that you noticed. Sorry. You need to double check. Charmed36 (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about "If I Were a Boy" but the others have her name on the credits.

"Scared of Lonely" - Written by: Rodney Jerkins, Lashawn Daniels, Cristyle Johnson, Rico Low, Solange Knowles, Beyonce Knowles. "Smash into You" - Written by: Christopher Stewart, Terius Nash, Thaddis Harrell, Beyonce Knowles. Wneedham02 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Still Running on chart!!

I replaced "was certified 2x Platinum" with "has so far been certified 2x Platinum", is that okay? The album is still running on the charts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Partyface (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Did You See The "Who Is Sasha Fierce" Website/Web Page?

Apparently, this is Beyonce (or a Beyonce imposter) who started this website/web page, which is actually a contest. The URL (web address) is [3]

Is this really Beyonce? Time will tell the story.

However, the topic, "Sasha Fierce", is being tweeted at Twitter [4].

--Carlozbt (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)carlozbt - Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 3:40pm

UK sales

Does anyone know what the official sales are for the album in the UK or know where I can find out? I know its been certified Platinum by BPI however it was mentioned on BBC Radio 1 how it was nearing 2xPlatinum, so I'd like to know the sales. Wneedham02 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I Am... Sasha Fierce article should be locked.

Someone keeps changing the U.S. certifification for the album to 3x platinum. It HAS NOT been certified to 3x platinum yet. If you go to www.riaa.com, you will see that the album is certified 2x platinum since January 2009. I'm getting tired of changing it back to 2x platinum.

Lucy2006 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Has "Ave Maria" even been confirmed as a single? BlueClerica (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Platinum Edition

It should be noted that Japan's release of the platinum edition will be on October 7, 2009, and that it will also come with an extra disc (disc 2) with dance mixes from the "Above and Beyonce" compilation (making the video disc disc 3).

Source: http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=SICP-2405 DBZfan29 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The HMV Japan tracklisting is advising that the Platinum Edition is now the Deluxe edition of the album with the "above and Beyonce" dance mixes added to both discs along with the DVD, the source above also contains this tracklisting, can the remixes be added to the "Deluxe Edition" tracklistings with the dance remixes disc removed from the Platinum edition section as it looks like this is no longer the case with the Japan release

Source:http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/3645148/track/1 Trauts25 22:57, 11 October 2009

The platinum edition is the platinum edition. CDJapan even has cover art to prove it. The info on the deluxe edition could be added, but at the same time this is the "real" platinum edition and the deluxe edition already has a tracklisting. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Also that source shows the actual platinum edition but with a different tracklisting. Since all of the releases have all 20 tracks on one disc, the second disc should be the mixes one and not a separate "Sasha Fierce" section. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand where your coming from but both the sources above and Sony Music Japan source:http://www.sonymusic.co.jp/Music/International/Arch/SR/Beyonce/SICP-2405/index.html

confirm the dance mixes disc does not exist and that japan are not getting the normal 20 track platinum version.

I feel the Above and beyonce dance mixes japan disc should be removed as it is not part of the Japan release, and the fact these remixes are added to the deluxe version for the Japanese Platinum release should be noted. Trauts25 18:38, 12 October 2009

I guess the info can be updated, just as long as you cite the changes. If you want I can do it. Column one should list the actual platinum edition with the DVD. The Japanese column should list discs one and two (just make a little note that the DVD is also included instead of writing it again). I do have something else to point out, though. "Save the Hero" and "Why Don't You Love Me" were not iTunes exclusives in Japan. As they always are, these were bonus tracks for us and were apart of the actual album in Japan. Don't write that they were bonus tracks. Also, CDJapan has updated their site with the same exact tracklisting. I misread the decription. It says it includes eight mixes from the "Above and Beyoncé" album; not that includes the actual CD. Sorry for all the confusion! D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem re the confusion and thanks for updating :) Trauts25 20:09, 12 October 2009

Introduction

Hey guys, Diva and Halo were also released in Brazil. I'm from Brazil and can confirm this, and you can see that on Beyonce's official page in portuguese. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Video Phone next single?

{{editprotected}} The unsourced third and fourth sentences in the singles section under Video Phone reading "As confirmed on Beyonce's web site, she will release "Video Phone" as a US-only single to coincide with the release of the Platinum Edition re-release of 'I Am... Sasha Fierce'. It will impact radio in September 2009." be removed as there is no supporting source. thank you. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

 Done I commented it out. It can obviously be re-added if a ref is provided. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Broken Hearted Girl/Video Phone Controversy...

Can i just confirm that the link given to confirm the release of "Broken Hearte Girl" [5] is in Italian but if you use a language translator e.g. Yahoo's BABELFISH, the article turns out to say and the song "Broken Hearted Girl" (featured on I Am... Sasha Fierce deluxe edition already out) can be heard on radio in September. However this is not confirmation that it is actually being released commericially as a single. How did editors allow someone to use a blog to source the single cover? It has been long known on wikipedia that blogs are not an official source.

Additionally there is NO official sources to say "Video Phone" is a confirmed release as a new single in the US or elsewhere. I recommend that all mentions of both songs being released as singles are removed until we have more than one independent source that can verify the information. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

Agree - in fact, I removed mentions previously, as well as redirected the song articles. The mentions keep appearing... keep them out until there is an official confirmation. - eo (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Broken-Hearted Girl is the next official single.....it has already been released in Australia in August 2009....source 1 source 2 source 3 source 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teammelarky (talk • contribs) 15:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case then this can be added to the article but should specifically be written that it has ONLY been released in australia. Do not under any circumstances add video phone!!!! (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

And this is translation on beyonce's official website:

"The single driving force Platinum Edition of "I Am. Sasha Fierce" will be Broken-Hearted Girl "(this song in both versions of" I AM .. Sasha Fierce "currently for sale) that you can listen to radio in September." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teammelarky (talk • contribs) 16:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

so it does confirm that it will be released as a single.....not just that it will impact radioTeammelarky (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's debate-able because according to Yahoo's language tool it just says that the song is impacting on radio. However because the single is available to purchase in australia it does indeed seem to be confirmed,. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

If it charts, then the proper thing to do is to go to WP:RFPP and request the protection be removed on Broken-Hearted Girl so that an article can be created there. There should never be an article at Broken-Hearted Girl (Beyoncé Knowles song) so long as Broken-Hearted Girl is available. Until it charts, it should remain a redirect, per the AFD.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lil unique.....you are wrong because this is the translation according to yahoo's lanughage tool, and it does confirm that it will be a single:

The single one of towing of the Platinum Edition of " The Am. Sasha Fierce" song present also in both will be Broken-Hearted Girl (the versions of " THE AM. Sasha Fierce" currently in sale) that you will be able to listen in radius from September.

You people sed if the single charts then the page will be made. Its cgarted at #194 on the Uk charts on downloads. so do what u sed or were u just saying that? Blazemon (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but i think you should mind your language. I did not personally ban the page i do not have the authority to do so. Only administrators can do that. If you wish the page to be unlocked you should make a request with admin. In future do not shoot the messenger. That kind of language and attitude can and will get you blocked from editing. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

Beyoncé's mad fans shouldn't be allowed to write here

"Also, her newest single "Sweet Dreams" is promoting more album sales due to its memorable mix of a haunting melody and a very techno vibe." that's the reason. it's frustrating to read this page. and the most frustrating thing is that serious writers don't correct this kind of statements and keep on sustain that this is a neutral page. this is just as Beyoncé's official fanclub. --93.146.254.173 (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

---

THE HELL.!! someone is removing some important info!!! like beyonce tying in britney and alicia.. the covers are removed ad the "i am... tour" section.. they erasing it..!!!the sales of the album.!! and many other info. Who The Hell removed the alternate covers. I hate it when they do that. The deluxe cover should at least be on here. --Aphordonte (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Where's the deluxe edition cover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.51.157 (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New Deluxe Edition

It's missing the new deluxe edition cover, in color, that features "Poison" and "Video Phone (Extended Remix) (feat. Lady GaGa)". Can somebody upload this, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.56.196.229 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Album covers

I Am... Sasha Fierce has been released with four different covers accompanying the four different releases: standard edition, old deluxe edition, platinum edition, and new deluxe edition. However, only the standard edition cover is featured here, although I do recall that the old deluxe edition cover used to be here as well. While including all of them in the infobox would probably make things a little too crowded (see: Robyn (album)), perhaps someone could include a gallery towards the end of the article containing the three alternate covers? That way, all bases could be covered and all the information would be available, as it were. I'm absolutely useless at this sort of thing, so I'll leave this up to someone more capable, if at all. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• On another note, the opening information regarding the singles seems to be incorrect; not only have they all charted worldwide, but moreover, there are eight, not seven. (I apologize for putting this here, but I didn't think it was appropriate to start another section, especially so soon) 76.107.137.39 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia copyright regulations do not allow us to have more than one album cover especially for I Am... Sasha Fierce because the four album covers are virtually identical. additionally only the factual efforts are mentioned in the lead section. It is too soon yet to include info about Video Phone because it is still charting. And calling her 7 singles worldwide is the best description for them. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce updated sales

Knowles has sold more than 2.9 million in the U.S copies i was wondering does it count as a 3x platnium certifacation and how come has the RIAA not noticed the sales i wonder if we can update that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.204.59 (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Beyonce - UK SALES

the album is 4 x Platinum Certification ,http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/Search.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.24.110 (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Awards

Beyoncé has won awards for this album other than her Grammy nominations. Shouldn't they be listed in the Awards section? If not, I think it ought to be changed to strictly "Grammy Awards." Jdot01 (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

IASF is at 5.6Million

It's not at 6Million copies yet, just two weeks it was 5.5 million copies, it's doesn't go from 5.5 to 6M in 2 weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.39.14 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Heather Morris link

Kindly redirect the link on Heather Morris in this page. That's not the right actress. Kindly redirect the link instead to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Morris_(actress)

I'd do it myself if I knew how... meh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.213.249 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Will Somebody Please

Will Somebody Please tell these people that the track listings for the stnadard edition of "I Am...Sasha Fierce" is as:(disc 1)1:If I were A Boy",2:"Halo",3:"Dissappear",4:"Broken-Hearted Girl",5:"Ave Maria",6:"Satellites"/(Disc 2)1:Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It),2:"Radio",3:"Diva",4:"Sweet Dreams",5:"Video Phone". And I would know because I have the standard edition.User:K.M.D1994 Tuesday ,February 15 2010 UTC

Because the album have 2 disc. disc 1: I am... (ballads) and disc 2: Sasha Fierce: (dance-pop). "save the hero" and "why don't you love me" are bonus digital download tracks

Standard Edition

I Am...

1. "If I Were a Boy" (Toby Gad, BC Jean) – 4:10
2. "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles, Ryan Tedder, Evan Kidd Bogart) – 4:21
3. "Disappear" (Knowles, Amanda Ghost, Hugo Chakrabongse, Dave McCracken, Ian Dench) – 4:28
4. "Broken-Hearted Girl" (Kenneth "Babyface" Edmonds, Mikkel S. Eriksen, Tor Erik Hermansen, Knowles) – 4:39
5. "Ave Maria" (Knowles, Ghost, Dench, Makeba, Eriksen, Hermansen) – 3:42
6. "Satellites" (Ghost, McCracken, Dench, Knowles) – 3:07
7. "Save The Hero" (Bonus Track) (Knowles, Ali Tamposi, Rico Love & James Scheffer) - 4:34

Sasha Fierce

1. "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" (Christopher Stewart, Terius Nash, Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell, Knowles) – 3:13
2. "Radio" (Scheffer, Love, Dwayne Nesmith, Knowles) – 3:38
3. "Diva" (Knowles, Shondrae Crawford, Sean Garrett) – 3:21
4. "Sweet Dreams" (Knowles, Scheffer, Wayne Wilkins, Love) – 3:28
5. "Video Phone" (Knowles, Crawford, Garrett, Angela Beyincé) – 3:35
6. "Why Don't You Love Me?" (Pre-Order Bonus Track) (Knowles, Knowles, Bama Boyz) – 3:37

Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 16:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Track listings (new)

What does everyone think of the new track listing format? its an adaptation of the version found at The Ballads. If people (mainly) dislike it then i will happily revert it back. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks very cluttered, and honestly I'm unable to read and understand it. --It's Flo (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I mean no offense, but it is very disconcerting. Jdot01 (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Looks quite confusing, sorry. SnapSnap 20:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok i've reverted back to the original version.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Production

Nice job on the article, but I don't know if it's ready for a GA nom. There really needs to be an increased focus on production, as most of the article seems to be just about its release and reception. The "background" and "music" sections seem to have some information, but this really needs to be expanded upon. Beyonce has had a lot of coverage from sources during the making of this album so I don't think it will be very hard to find that much information. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010 Under Construction

I've marked the article because it is due radical change. I've made a start by editing the single's section and replacing the bullets with two paragraphs for the official singles and one for the other charted songs. I've also moved "Smash into You" to the music section as it did not chart. i've identfied the following changes which we can mark off when complete: Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Copy editing of singles section.
   •  Done on May 13, 2010
2. Change of Release and promotion to Marketing and promotion section which will include expanding information about performances etc.
   •  Done on May 2010
3. Writing a more informative lead section in-line with other GA albums.
   •  Done on May 2010
4. Sorting out the infobox which will include incorportating Beyonce into the list of producers as well as adding recording locations and cross-referencing the genres.
   •  Done May 16, 2010, Alt text needs to be added.
5. Confirming the infobox release dates - radio dates should not appear so those need to be checked and changed where necessary.
   •  Done May 15, 2010
6. Shifting the article to U.S. English as Beyoncé is a U.S. subject.
7. Expanding the music section.
   •  Done on May 2010
8. Creating a production and or recording section.
   •  Done on May 2010
9. Speaking more about sasha fierce maybe in a concept or themes section since it was a big part of the marketing of the album - could perhaps be done as Lola is for Love? (album).
   •  Done 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
10. General copy edit of commericial performance section.
    •  Done on May 2010.
11. Charts should be better laid out.
    •  Done May 13, 2010
12. Sorting of personnel into technical and managerial like Shock Value 2#Personnel or Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel#Personnel.
    •  Done May 15, 2010
13. Check to see if the album won awards other than Grammys.
    •  Done May 22, 2010 by Jivesh.
14. Re-organising the release history and sourcing ALL release dates (this will include removing unsourced ones).
    •  Done on May 15, 2010 - all tables need to be similarly aligned though.
    • Re-done and finalised May 16, 2010.
15. Fix external links from <ref> </ref> tag to <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>
    •  Done on May 2010

---

Comment I'm expanding " Release history " section on my sandbox. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tbhotch. I thought there's no point waiting for the GA nominators. I know they will rip the article apart compared to other recently passed GA albums.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

ACCOLADES

Can i expand the accolades section with references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jivesh boodhun (talk • contribs) 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Be bold Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 14:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes go for it. I'm sure Tbhotch and myself well help edit accordingly and as you've probably seen before if its incorrect it will be reverted lol. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Some notes for Clean up

Since this article is undergoing maintenance, I've taken note of a few things that ought to be cleaned up in order to streamline it per wikipedias manual of style (summary style).

As it stands this article is inordinately long, with many portions of it directly copying and posting language from a source with out proper paraphrasing or quoting. Sections such as the Sash Fierce portion become to trivial and include POV material that offers no source to provide it's speculation, or rely heavily on a single source that itself is a questionable website at best.

Also the awards and nominations portion seems a bit unnecessary. While it's important to list the accolades the album received, listing every single nomination is something that maybe better left for the Beyonce awards page.

The composition section can be completely cut up with most of it being removed and the other parts being integrated into the "Music" and "Background" sections as it has little to do with composition and simply rephrases, repeats or unnecessarily expands on already present information.

Also the section about Live performances is completely unnecessary. It seems better served in the singles pages and even then...there is no need to document where she performed every song and where each song has appeared, that seems trivial and it's definitely not notable or encyclopedic. 75.21.87.165 (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sasha Fierce

Can i create a section for SASHA FIERCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jivesh boodhun (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a Sasha Fierce section. But it was eliminated because it's not notable enough to merit an entire section that explains the same thing the Background and Music information already details. 75.22.20.86 (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Grammar and Dead Links

I have already corrected Grammar, Punctuation, Spelling as well as replaced Dead Links in the article. What more is there to do? I want it to pass for GA. (Jivesh boodhun (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

Ireland Sales

The album's sales have really exceeded 60,000 units which is equivalent to a 4xPlatinum certification in Ireland but IRMA has not certified it any further since it certifies an album for only how much it sells in the year it was released itself. See, the album's certification was in 2008 only while it topped the chart in 2009. Moreover, use your logic guys, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR AN ALBUM THAT HAS STAYED IN THE TOP 25 FOR 75 CONSECUTIVE WEEKS TO HAVE ONLY A 2X PLATINUM CERTIFICATION? If it was a single, it could have been said that it resisted through massive airplay but an album's chart performance is only based on sales. It has so far been charting over there for 82 consecutive weeks and all of them in the top 45. So i don't believe sales are only 30,000 (2xPlatinum). It's just that IRMA certifies an album for only what it sells in the year in which it is released. I bet if all years were counted, the album would have at least a 9xPlatinum certification. I'M NOT EXAGERRATING. Just look at the Fame. It has a 9xPlatinum certification though it spent only around 45 weeks in the chart. (The Fame Monster is currently charting SEPARATELY). The reason behind this enormous certification is that it was released in the beginning of 2009. We can even say it underperformed compared to I Am...Sasha Fierce. (Jivesh boodhun (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

Reference formatting and check

I do not have time to check all of the reference formatting as requested, but I was going to check a few and fix the formatting on at least one as a model for what to do. I looked at current ref 4 MTV (2008-10-09). "Beyoncé talks about her new album". MTV Asia. http://www.mtvasia.com/News/200810/09016758.html. Retrieved 2010-07-03. I found several problems.

• First off, the title of the webpage is different "Beyonce Releases Two Tracks From 'I Am ...' , Inspired By Jay-Z And Etta James".
• Second there is an author listed, whose name should be included in the reference here: "Jennifer Vineyard".
• Third and most important, the quotation on the web is different from the one used in the article. It is fine to paraphrase things and they must still be referenced if paraphrased, but it is not OK to put something in quotation marks that is not exactly the same as the original quote. The article now says "She described James as someone who "expressed herself and who was bold." This inspired her to do a lot of things musically and that, according to Knowles, no one else was doing right then.[4]" The paragraph in the webpage is "B also decided to follow the example of Etta James and broaden her horizons. "Etta expressed herself; she was bold," Beyoncé said. "That inspired me to do a lot of things musically that no one else is doing."

• It would be OK if the article read either

• • She described James as someone who expressed herself and who was bold. This inspired her to do a lot of things musically and that, according to Knowles, no one else was doing right then.[4] (current wording without quotation marks), or perhaps
  • She said of James "Etta expressed herself; she was bold." This inspired her to do a lot of things musically and that, according to Knowles, no one else was doing right then.[4]

I will fix the ref as an example, but do not have time to check or fix the other refs. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide Sales

Well my dear friends, it's pretty obvious that the album has sold more than 7 million copies worldwide but we need a reference. As of January, worldwide sales were more than 6 million. After the Grammy Awards in February 2010, the album skyrockted several charts, US, UK, Australia, Austria, Switzerland, Portugal, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands.. Well the list is too long and in a way the fact that "I Am...Sasha Fierce" won so many Grammy awards helped it spend more than 80 weeks in several charts worldwide. Accordingly, it managed an additional million of copies to extend its worlwide sales well above 7 million copies as of September 2010. HOWEVER, WE NEED A REFERENCE AND AVOID CITING FAN SITES. Jivesh boodhun (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:I Am... Sasha Fierce/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 00:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

If a section has "Reviewing..." on it don't touch it. You are allowed to answer everything else. If a comment is striked out, it has been 100% resolved. I'm not continuing until these issues are addressed. I kind of feel like you guys have lost intrest in this GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Production and development
     • "In a letter directed for her fans on October 2, 2008..." Is this supposed to be "directed to/towards" or "dedicated to/towards". I don't understand.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
     • When you list producers and songwriters, you have a mix of stage names and legal names (Tricky Stewart, yet Terius Nash?). Choose one and stick to it. WikiPolicy would agree with stage names. As for Rodney Jerkins, that is ok as is.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
       •  Not done Checked it, still there. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 04:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
     • Stargate links to the wrong article.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
     • "...Rico Love and Ryan Tedder, the latter who assisted her with crafting the album's balladry.^[7][7]" You cited #7 twice.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
     • "Additionally, she collaborated with some musicians that she hadn’t worked with in the past..." Get rid of the contraction.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
     • "Recording for the album took place over eight months, at which time Knowles had co-written and co-produced over seventy songs. After a process of elimination, twelve tracks were selected to be placed on the Standard Edition of the album, while five additional tracks were chosen to make the final cut for the Deluxe Edition of the album." Words in red are MOS:NUM violations. Words in blue, why the capitalization?

   • How do they violate MOS:NUM? If you are speaking of WP:ORDINAL, please read it again. Capitalisation issues are fixed. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

   • • "Knowles wanted to try something different[;] she felt people had strong expectations for her work. The sentence might make more sense if that semicolon was there.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
     • "Additionally, Beyoncé worked with Amanda Ghost to re-write the Schubert "Ave Maria" after..." I'm taking a wild guess that the person mentioned here is Franz Schubert. If this is the case, this is his first mention in the article. It should have his full name and be linked.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
     • "Ghost told [the] Daily Telegraph that both Knowles and herself were inspired by their respective recent marriages..." I don't know about you, but I can understand this sentence just fine without "respective". Also, the the in the brackets could help.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
     • "For [the] "I Am..." [side of the record], Knowles was influenced..." Please clarify this using a variation of the words in brackets. You switched topics right from under my nose and I didn't notice.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
     • "The only producer-songwriter duo to make both sides of the album is Tricky Stewart and The Dream..." THIS is why you need to use stage names. And if you don't, you need to make all mentions of people UNIFORM. If I didn't know their work, I would be confused now.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
       •  Not done.
     • I thought you were gonna describe the "I Am..." side then the "Sasha Fierce" side. Now I'm confused. Fix it. Maybe this sentence is the problem, "The disc utilizes production and songwriting from Jerkins, Garrett, Solange, Love and Jonsin." Since the first sentence of the paragraph talks about "I Am..." I assume that this sentence is about "I Am..." also.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
   • Composition
     • "The second disc, Sasha Fierce contains consistent..." PLEASE come up with a uniform way to address both sides of the album, using italics or quotes, I don't care.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
       •  Almost. Please note that I did not list every single instance of this issue. Please go through the article and correct all of it. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 04:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
     • "Bill Lamb of About.com commented about the songs on the Sasha Fierce side, stating "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a throwback to B'Day's "Get Me Bodied"." Same as above (Sasha Fierce). Also, that is the first mention of B'Day in the main article. Link it.  Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
       •  Almost. Link B'Day.
     • "The album formally introduces Knowles' alter-ego "Sasha Fierce"." You need to sort this out. When is it the alter ego, the other side of the album, etc.
       • Seems like you do not know a lot about Beyonce. Lol. "Sasha Fierce" is both her alter-ego and the name of the second disc. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
         • You seem to have misunderstood me. I know a lot about Beyonce, but not every person who comes to this article is gonna be a Beyonce STAN. When I review it, I'm taking a 100% blind approach to it. Not everyone knows as much as us. I was telling you to differentiate mentions. Make it clear when you are talking about the ego and when you are talking about the side. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 03:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
     • The robo-glove comments ride the line of "What the hell does that have to do with anything?" If you can, make it more involved.
       • You will have to surf on the net for her alter ego. You will find all this. This information deserves a place here. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
         • What does ONE robo-glove have to do with the composition of the album, let alone her alter-ego? I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 03:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
   • Musical style and lyrical content
     • Reviewing...
   • Release
     • "The Deluxe edition of the album was released simultaneously with the Standard edition. Why the italics? Why the capitalization??  Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
       •  Not done
     • "Finally, the Platinum edition of I Am... Sasha Fierce was released..." Same as above (Platinum edition).  Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
       •  Not done
     • "The Deluxe edition of the album was re-issued..." Same.  Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
       •  Not done
     • "Knowles also performed the song on her I Am... Tour..." Tours aren't italicized.  Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
     • "After the release of the EP – I Am...Sasha Fierce – The Bonus Tracks in Korea..." Is that the full name?  Fixed Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
     • "After its release as a promotional single..." Promotional singles aren't offered to the public for purchase.
       • Please see Wikipedia:Promotional singles. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
         • Ok... That supports my statement... I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 03:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
   • Promotion
     • Reviewing...
   • I Am... Tour
     • Reviewing...
   • Singles
     • Reviewing...
   • Commercial performance
     • Reviewing...
   • Critical reception
     • Reviewing...
   • Recognitions and accolades
     • Reviewing...
   • Track listing
     • Reviewing...
   • Personnel
     • Reviewing...
   • Charts and certifications
     • Reviewing...
   • Release history
     • Reviewing...
   • Misc.
     • MOS:IMAGES says that you should attempt to stagger images in an article, but the layout is done so well, this can be overlooked. It's a guideline anyway.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Lead
     • I do not believe the Lady Gaga version of "Video Phone" was released. Check into the matter.
   • Production and development
     • The 2007 part is not directly cited, but I am guessing you inferred that from the article "for close to one year". I'd prefer if you get a direct citation.
     • Correct the link for #8. Sends to the wrong page (it goes to page 3 instead of 4).
   • Composition
     • Reviewing...
   • Musical style and lyrical content
     • Reviewing...
   • Release
     • Reviewing...
   • Promotion
     • Reviewing...
   • I Am... Tour
     • Reviewing...
   • Singles
     • Reviewing...
   • Commercial performance
     • Reviewing...
   • Critical reception
     • Reviewing...
   • Recognitions and accolades
     • Reviewing...
   • Track listing
     • Unsourced (yes, this needs to be sourced too). Also, cite something that can be reviewed without buying the actual album (Allmusic, Itunes, etc).
   • Personnel
     • Reviewing...
   • Charts and certifications
     • Reviewing...
   • Release history
     • Reviewing...
   • Misc.
     • Why is the citation for #6 underlined? Use the Template:Cite music release notes template.
     • Check your citation links here; slew of errors.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   It seems like they are in control of IP edits and unsourced ones. There's always semi-protection.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Notes:
     • Check your captions. They go back and forth between using periods and not using periods. Rule of thumb (adapted from WP:CAP), if the caption isn't a complete sentence ("I Am... Sasha Fierce earned Knowles eight nominations at the 52nd Grammy Awards." = actual, full sentence. "Knowles performing in I Am... Tour." ≠ actual, full sentence.) don't use a period.
     • In some instances (here and here; here and here), the captions do not match the descriptions on the file page. Why is this a problem? Could be mistaken as original research. Deal with this issue.
     • The article makes a mention of two covers for both sides of the album. Out of all of the instances in Wikipedia, THIS would be the most appropriate time to include both covers in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will start most probably tomorrow. I had a very bad day in real life. I am feeling sick. Jivesh • Talk2Me 09:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe everything has been addressed by Jivesh and me. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No no please do not think so. It's just that i have been very busy. Please please give me some time. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by outside party This review has been going on for a month and a half ... what's the status? It looks not even half done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Review stalled?

Can I suggest that if the review is not completed by June 6, 2011 (7 days from now) that the review is automatically terminated. Its been ongoing since March 6, 2011. Three months is enough time already. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Err, it was actually April 6, but yeah I agree, two months is way too long anyway. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like IHelpWhenICan has left Wikipedia. Novice7 (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

He has been editing in the past few days. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't know.. The template on his talk page. Novice7 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anybody wants me to take it up? (Just call me on my Video, Video, Video Phoneee) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait and see whether IHWIC wants to continue the review. If he doesn't (or retires) then yeah, feel free to review, otherwise it might be good to just fail it and re-nom later. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the date issue, that aside the comments left by IHWIC haven't fully been completed yet. His comment at the top of this page says he will not continue the review until the rest of the changes are completed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to be mean, but I agree that almost two months is a bit ridiculous. I would agree to failing it and thoroughly copy-editing it, I mean even this review page is a big mess and hard to navigate. Following that, we can then re-nominate it and have Legolas do the review, if he still is up for it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's probably the best course of action. Per the above I'm failing this article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Awards Deletion

Both the Dangerously in Love and B'Day pages have sections which contain the awards that each album has both won and been nominated for. I spent quite a while creating the one for this page and someone has simply deleted it. May I ask why? Angelic-alyssa (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What you did was made a research in this article history. Some sources said "accessdate=2010" and "dead link", you did not worked on it at all. Now, DIL and B'Day are short articles in comparison with I Am... (94Kb, 92Kb, 157Kb, respectively) adding 12KB more won't help in anything. Also if you didn't notice it I Am... Sasha Fierce#Recognition and accolades exist for a reason. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 22:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I transferred them over from the List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé Knowles page, so if the links were dead, that is something that should've been corrected there first. But you are right about the accolades section, I apologise, I hadn't noticed it. Angelic-alyssa (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit July 2011

I have copyedited the article using MoS along with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music).

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:

Production and development

• "... been successful and fortunate, she wanted to be further challenged." - This is a quote from the ref and is not fully accurate, it should be fully quoted in quotation marks:

"Even though I've been very successful and very fortunate, I want to still be challenged"

• "She co-wrote or co-produced nearly all the material on the album" (para 2) - not what the ref says:

"Beyoncé co-wrote or co-produced all the material on the album"

• "For the I Am... side of the record," (para 3) - changed to "For the I Am... disc," as I cannot find a reference to this as a vinyl release, and more importantly it was released on other media formats CD/DVD/Digital-download (as well, if it was in fact released on vinyl) - both parts are also mentioned as "disc" later in the paragraph.

• "These ballads were said to combine the best elements of pop and soul music, while simultaneously expanding the possibilities of both genres.<ref name="page 3"/> Knowles wanted to try something different; she felt people had strong expectations for her work.<ref name="page 3"/>"

This whole section should be quoted and should be attributed to the writers/article - "were said [by who claimed it] to"

• Dead link (para 4) as the statement is no longer there - <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.beyonceonline.com/|title=Beyonce Addresses Her Fans On Her Upcoming Release, Due In Stores November 18th|author=Beyonce Knowles |date=October 2, 2008|accessdate=February 28, 2011|publisher=Beyoncé Knowles Official Website}}</ref>

Composition

• "The second disc, Sasha Fierce contains consistent electro influences," - this appears to be perhaps WP:SYN as neither of the refs say what is reflected in the article text.

"The 80s synthpop mode of Radio" is the only mention of "Radio" or "Sweet Dreams" in The Guardian article, along with "Video Phone ... and echoing electronics is so thrilling", which is not the song mentioned in the article text.

The L.A. Times article does not mention either song.

• "Later interviewed by Marie Claire," - why is this not a ref to the article itself? The article is here.

Musical style and lyrical content

• Much of the section has SYN and OR; refs that do not say the statements they are ref'd as saying in the wiki article, and are generally misquoted. There are many missing attributions also.

Release

• "An EP titled I Am...Sasha Fierce – The Bonus Tracks" - I have searched the project album archives but cannot find anything that differs from de-italicising, as it is an ep single and singles are not italicised.

I Am... Tour

• Tours are not included in the list of items to be italicised in MoS. I have de-italicised them, although I would welcome information to show whether or not they should be in italics - this also matches the linked Wiki article of the same name which does not use italics.

Singles

• I have moved this to the "Commercial performance" section. The singles section was almost completely commercial information, chart positions etc. - as they are from the album, the album should be first. I have looked at some other albums to compare how they handled the details (in fact most I looked at seem to use a level 2 section titled "Chart positions" with level 3 headers for "Album" and "Singles").

Recognition and accolades

• "Agence France-Presse of ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs" -> "Agence France-Presse, as reported by ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs," - Agence France-Presse is not a reporter, it is a press agency.
• I have hidden a couple sections of details which refer to Beyonce winning awards that are not directly related to the album, as such they should not really be here but in the Beyonce awards article.

General

• numerous quotes and their associated cites do not contain the material they purport to. On three separate cases I had to click on links within the ref material that then took me to another site that had the material supposedly in the ref.

E.g. "Knowles explained in Essence Magazine that "If I Were a Boy" is different from her previous songs in the sense that it is not a traditional R&B song."

This is not supported by the ref given in the article. <ref name="ew 1">{{Cite web|url=http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1596573/20081008/knowles_beyonce.jhtml |title=Beyonce Releases Two Tracks From 'I Am ...' , Inspired By Jay-Z And Etta James |author=Jennifer Vineyard |date=October 8, 2008 |accessdate=February 26, 2011 |publisher=[[MTV News]]. [[MTV Networks]]}}</ref> - Clicking this url takes one to mtv.com. This has a link to Essence magazine which one has to click to go to the Essence magazine site where one still cannot read the material that the Wiki article says is cited by the MTV page (as the article does nto appear to exist anymore).

The MTV page actually says: "... "If I Were a Boy" is unlike anything Beyoncé has done before. "It's broad," she told Essence. "But I had to try it, because I remember Aretha Franklin said a great singer can sing anything and make it her own.""

Nowhere does that MTV page mention R&B.

The Essence magazine interview cannot be found after 20 minutes of searching around their site.

• Many quotes are not in quotations, or do not have attributions in the article.

I have finished the copyedit. All in all a comprehensive article :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you wholeheartedly. I will fix these issues soonest possible. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I AM has not sold 7M copies

http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=81761 I AM hit 6M in early 2010 which is pretty much always been confirmed. According to Mediatraffic and other sources it sold sold an extra few hundred thousand that year so no way it sold another million.

The source i cited is reliable. The one you are bringing here is a forum. It is unreliable. And the source i cited is a more recent one. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also Mediatraffic is unreliable, per many discussions, please refer to WP:IRS, WP:ELNO and WP:BADCHARTS for more information. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.

Alter ego

Are the apostrophes on Beyonce's alter ego, Sasha Fierce needed in the article? It's a name after all. My love is love (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is not the name of a person. It is just the name of the alter ego. For example, i won't write Jivesh nick name... It should be Jivesh's nick name. Got it? Jivesh 1205 (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Beyonce Adopts 'Fierce' Alter-Ego

http://www.billboard.com/news/beyonce-adopts-fierce-alter-ego-1003877403.story#/news/beyonce-adopts-fierce-alter-ego-1003877403.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.230.27 (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Too good

• [6]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Dance/Club Play Songs launched as a national survey the week of Aug. 21, 1976. Beyonce's "I Am...Sasha Fierce" became the first such set

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

To source one year:

• [7]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Recording

• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/arts/music/16ligh.html My love is love (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)  Done

More

• http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-11-20/music/cd-review-beyonce/
• http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2009/02/09/090209crmu_music_frerejones?currentPage=all  Done

Sasha

Isn't this article too long? I think it should be reduced by replacing the whole Release history section. Otherwise, I am adding the {{very long}} template. 77.28.227.128 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

While the filesize is above the recommended size, the readable prose (6329 words) is well below the recommended maximum size of 10,000 words, and only marginally above the recommended minimum consideration of 6,000 words Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues. It is not really feasible to split off at present as the article would suffer if any section was to be removed. One way of reducing the blocks of text might be to put a lot of information from the accolades section into table format.

I appreciate there may have been problems for you in reading the article, but I really do think that the tag is inappropriate at present. If the article was 9,000 words + the tables I would certainly support the tag being added. I have removed it for now. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Number one in Japan

• [8]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly‘s Best Albums Of The 2000s

• 08 Beyoncé – I Am… Sasha Fierce (2008)

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done with EW's link. My love is love (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You are so kind and helpful. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Awwwwwwwww... Thank you. My love is love (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I Am... Sasha Fierce: Deluxe Edition cover

That cover is from 2009 Edition (re-release). 2008 Deluxe Edition cover is this one. — Mcdonalds (talk · cont), at 11:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:I Am... Sasha Fierce/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jennie--x (talk · contribs) 20:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

General comment from a pop music editor. I already asked the nominator, however, obviously he didn't do my point. I Am... Sasha Fierce was edited from it's beginning by Jivesh boodhun and he made 890 contributions on the article of course being its top contributor. The nominator Hahc21 has not even made 10 contributions on the article. Obviously he even didn't credit Jivesh as second nominator. As for that I suggest a withdrawal on this nomination, as Hahc21 does not have the right to nominate the article. — Tomica (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Support withdraw per above. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 23:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was out to personal businness and completely forgot about this. Please excuse me, i have added Jivesh's name :) And actually, anyone has the right to nominate the article. I want the article reach GA status but not to say that i made it reach it such status. I now it was Jivesh, but as he's not editing too much, i decided to go and nominate it myself so it can reach GA status. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and as a reviewer and common member of the GA review crew, i have to say this: The fact that the nominator is not the top contributor has nothing to do with this. This is not FAC boys. Anyone can credit themselves as helping improve an article to GA status. I have worked on some articles other people nominated to GA, and i just came in the review and helped. I didn't asked the user to withdraw the nomination, which i consider ridiculous even when i understand your point. I know Jivesh wrote the article to what it is now, but the mere fact that i nominated it doesn't mean i'm trying to overtake his work. That's not how this works gentlemen. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Jennie | ☎ 20:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

When will this start? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This week, sorry for the delay! :) Jennie | ☎ 21:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Initial Comments

• Lead

• Y

• Development

• A huge quote in this section - but there is no source? Can this be cited, please?  Done

• Production and recording

• Again, the sentence beginning "She affirmed, "I love singing ballads..." is a long quote with no source. Can this be cited, please?  Done

• Composition

• Citation needed tag in Musical style and lyrical content needs sourcing/removing.  Done

• Release

• Y

• Promotion

• Y

• Reception

• Y

• Track listing

• Y

• Personnel

• Y

• Charts and certifications

• Y

• Release history

• Y

Overall Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): ✓ Pass b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): ✓ Pass It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): ✓ Pass b (citations to reliable sources): ✓ Pass c (OR): ✓ Pass It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): ✓ Pass b (focused): ✓ Pass It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: ✓ Pass It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: ✓ Pass It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): ✓ Pass b (appropriate use with suitable captions): ✓ Pass
Overall: Pass/Fail: ✓ Pass
· · ·

The writing credits?

The writings of the songs are credited with her first AND LAST NAME. This should apply to all her albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.12.19.65 (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail → "lukewarm reviews"

There has been edit warring recently over whether the Daily Mail article previously cited here should be kept or removed to cite that this album received lukewarm reviews from critics. XXSNUGGUMSXX said that it has been declared unreliable in several RSN discussions ([9]), while Petergriffin9901 said it shouldn't be used under any circumstances because it is "a poorly written GOSSIP and FASHION tabloid" ([10]). So I looked through some recent RSN posts on it and found different conclusions from editors who've discussed it, including this one by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง: "whether we like tabloids or not, the DM is a mainstream, established British newspaper and therefore citations to it would generally meet RS." (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Reliability_of_the_Daily_Mail) Furthermore, the issue with the source was its use for contentious statements, and there hasn't even been a consensus against its use for those statements, while non-contentious statements should be fine (RSN/Archive 151) Also, according to Sceptre at a previous RSN post, the Daily Mail is evaluated on a case-by-case basis:

"On contentious subjects, sources that are generally reliable, especially non peer-reviewed ones such as newspapers, have to be carefully examined to see if they are reliable in that case. Would we use the Mail as a source on anything to do with European law? Of course not. Besides, the consensus on the Daily Mail is that it's evaluated on a case-by-case basis, a far cry from 'generally reliable'."(Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_85)

So there hasn't been a strong consensus against the use of the Daily Mail. Those who feel different, please offer an argument beyond those recent edit summaries, because the paper's tabloid format doesn't automatically make it tabloid journalism, which this journalist professor acknowledged in his book on Britain's tabloid history: "profoundly respectable and unsensational paper". Dan56 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if past discussions didn't explicitly blacklist or anything, the fact that Daily Mail has often been under scrutiny for repeated fraudulent reports says something. One thread even was titled "Time to axe the Daily Mail" and went into detail on how it isn't reliable. As for that link calling it "profoundly respectable", I found nothing in the book it referred to saying that. Just gave me an error. Peter was spot on with how it is in fact tabloid journalism and should be avoided whenever possible. If including "lukewarm reviews", I strongly encourage finding a more reliable source for such a statement. It's definitely nowhere near as reliable as things like The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "gave me an error"? The search results at GoogleBooks clearly shows the quote highlighted in bold. Also, Conboy--the author of the original book on Britain's tabloid history--is cited in another book on tabloid journalism for the exact same quote about the Daily Mail ([11]). And the fact that it has been scrutinized suggests there a difference of opinion (or misunderstanding) between one group of editors and another, not that the Daily Mail shouldn't be used for non-contentious statements. If you actually read through those discussions, you'd find that there are certain material/topics (like reports on the law and scientific material, or biographies on living people) that editors felt the Daily Mail is unreliable for--hence the "case-by-case" conclusions regarding it as an acceptable source. I dont see how Peter was spot on about it when his reasoning was exclusive to brief edit summaries just calling it a tabloid without any elaboration on how it is tabloid journalism ([12], [13])--wheras I've now found two academic sources that agree it is "profoundly respectable and unsensational" (tabloid journalism is sensational). Now of course I agree with your last two statements--that we should be encouraged to use more reliable sources for statements summarizing how the album was received. If The Daily Telegraph or The Guardian make such statements, then feel free to cite them instead. Also, as this most recent discussion pointed out, even The Guardian has a pronounced liberal bias, and even British tabloids meet WP:RS, though not for contentious details on BLPs and the greater issue with tabloids is not reliability (that can be easily checked for a particular article/story simply by comparing it to how better sources have treated the same story), but weight and whether what a tabloid has written about meets the threshold for inclusion or significance. Dan56 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The error being that when I go to the link you provided, and click the book it builds that text from, it displays none of that text and gave a 404 error. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

So? Are you disputing the quote exists because of a Google server error? The quote and book are real in spite of this glitch, and the rest of my points stand. Dan56 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide error-free references.

It's not a web source. Print sources don't require URLs, so if I had to in a Wikipedia article, I could obviously cite it without the link. I don't understand why you're citing WP:BURDEN, as it has nothing to do with this discussion. Dan56 (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The following sources all indicate Daily Mail is a tabloid:

• TIME
• New Yorker
• Washington Post
• CNN
• Irish Central
• International Business Times

I'll let Peter make his elaboration, and thought I'd give these links. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for discussing the Daily Mail as an unreliable source simply because it is in your opinion marred by "tabloid journalism". The proper venue (as all the RSN posts I've provided suggest) is WP:RSN. If you want to have a discussion on how the specific material used in this article shouldn't be attributed to the Daily Mail, then you should probably make a case as to how the sentence about "lukewarm reviews" is contentious or inaccurate. Otherwise, I'm not going to entertain any more remarks on how the Daily Mail isn't reliable in general, simply because of the impression all those WP:RSN posts give you and Peter. I understand where you're both coming from, but it's pointless to talk about this anymore here when none of the past or most recent RSNs on this newspaper came to the same conclusion. Dan56 (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference which calls the Daily Mail a "profoundly respectable and unsensational paper" is referring to the paper in the 19th century; I don't think we can use that as a guide to its current reliability. FWIW, I generally agree with the RSN comment you cited above that the Mail is "a mainstream, established British newspaper and therefore citations to it would generally meet RS", but we shouldn't exaggerate its reliability. It might also be worth considering at some point whether stories that are only published on a newspaper's website are subject to the same editorial scrutiny as those published in print. VoluntarySlave (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Its unreliability shouldn't be exaggerated either. The RSN posts cited in this discussion have either found that it's an acceptable source for non-contentious statements (none of the editors disputing its use in this article have said anything about "lukewarm reviews" being contentious) or they've found that its use is acceptable on a case-by-case basis. Dan56 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no discussion to be had. No consensus to be needed. I don't have the time/patience, nor will I expend effort to repeat myself and argue facts. The Daily Mail is a tabloid that holds absolutely zero journalistic credibility. It is a gossip-media-fashion based website that does nothing but present astonishingly poor writing, biased/ridiculous views, and utter garbage in terms of research and sources. I will not repeat it again. The article and its reviews can speak for themselves. I don't need Dan coming here and slapping on a bunch of nonsensical POV statements instead of allowing professionals to do it instead. Who are you to surmise and interpret all those critical reviews into the term lukewarm? Oh, because you have a tabloid? So your word and a tabloid are a proper vehicle to speak for 50 different critics? I will not repeat this again. It goes into administrative hands from here.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Please remain cool when in an editing dispute. There's no need for this hostility or level of dismissiveness, especially when I've shown RSN posts saying otherwise, which VoluntarySlave agreed to a certain extent. I suggest you revert yourself with this edit and remark; you still need a consensus to restore a change that is clearly at this point controversial, having been reverted not only by me but by Tomica. You're not showing a willingness to understand any viewpoints other than your own that have been presented in this discussion. Dan56 (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I address you with dismissiveness because what you're asserting is of no value. First off, SNUGGUMS and myself both reverted you. So, my viewpoint is actually shared by another as well.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Tomica (who also restored the removed material) and VoluntarySlave shared my viewpoint. You need to be less dismissive and try to work with and not against other editors. I showed an effort to understand SNUGGUMS's comments here and did my best to address them. In addressing his concern over the several RSNs dealing with the Daily Mail, I found that they did not prohibit its use as a source. How is that of no value? Furthermore, Kww just reiterated ([14]) by past comment in this discussion--RSN is the appropriate forum for the Daily Mail as a reliable source and that its use here is for a non-contentious statement. Dan56 (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Tell me. Have you ever read article on the Daily Mail? If you have, I'm really surprised any respectable editor would even suggest having it in a GA class article. I don't see why you prefer using unacceptable tabloids instead of just quoting Metacritic and their given score.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I certainly have read a number of their articles, and see no reason to deem them credible at all. As I previously said, the "lukewarm reviews" bit should be replaced with a more reliable source than Daily Mail. While Peter shouldn't be dismissive, Dan should look more closely at the material they provide. Things that say it is anywhere along the lines of "profoundly respectable" is outdated (a point VoluntarySlave mentioned above) and/or simply marketing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

XXSNUGGUMSXX and Petergriffin9901, don't use this article as a referendum on the Daily Mail. As I have said before (and Kww repeated), WP:RSN is the appropriate forum for questioning the Daily Mail's reliability. Dan56 (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Dan... I don't care what word you find to describe its critical commentary. I agree with you that lukewarm is appropriate. That's not the issue. I cannot allow a source like the Daily Mail be used for journalism; especially on a GA article. I could honestly care less about what word you use as long as its backed by a credible source. Is that so much to ask?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

With respect Petergriffin9901, it's not what you allow, it's what consensus decides on reflection of the relevant guidelines and policies. The Daily Mail is certainly a decisive resource and I don't agree that it's "profoundly respectable and unsensational"; I find it far more biased than other British newspapers such as The Telegraph and The Guardian (as XXSNUGGUMSXX says). However, I'm also sceptical of labelling it a tabloid, the Mail is in a strange position of being what we call a middle-market newspaper and so it's at the mid-point between tabloid and broadsheet (think of it as a balance of both), and so I expect that news organisations will hold it in either regard. From what I've seen, discussion at WP:RSN has not provided a definitive answer on the issue, and so I suggest editors open a new thread if they feel pressed to do so, although I anticipate the response being much of the same ambiguity. I think what we can discern from the past discussion is that things must be assessed on a case-by-case basis (as per WP:NEWSORG also) and where the Daily Mail would certainly not be reliable for contentious issues, with more "trivial" aspects (as Kww calls it on their talk page), there is less of an issue. What I mean by this is that the Mail would not be reliable for detailing the events of, for example, Solange Knowles/Jay-Z's recent elevator fight (as it is likely to incorporate it's own bias and sensationalise the story), but I don't think it's a problem to assert the consensus of an album review (with support from Metacritic) from their music section as the problems of bias/sensationalism are less likely to creep in to those sorts of article. What convinces me more is that we are really just supporting the Metacritic source when we cite the Mail: we already know that the reception was lukewarm from the score, but we need to convert 62/100 into something we can understand, and really the Mail just facilitates this. As we don't take anything else from that source that may provide a point of contention, I think we should keep the status quo. Regards, —JennKR | ☎ 12:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, an Exclaim! source could be used (alone OR w/Mail source): Beyoncé leads the group, with ten nominations for her lukewarm I Am... Sasha Fierce album.

Peter, is it too much to ask for you to understand that Daily Mail is an acceptable source in certain cases but not in others? Dan56 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is not a reliable source and my view on that won't change.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Kk, we're all entitled to our opinions. Dan56 (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, rather than asking about the general reliability of the Mail, we should consider either a) whether it is a more reliable source than Metacritic or b) whether the article is improved by adding the Mail's evaluation of the response to the article in addition to Metacritic's. JennKR's suggestion that we could use the wording from the Mail to provide an explanation in words of Metacritic's numerical score is good, but complicated by the fact that Metacritic itself describes a score of 62 as "generally favorable", which I don't think means quite the same thing as "lukewarm". It's also perhaps worth mentioning that the phrase "lukewarm reviews" only appears in passing in the Mail article, which is mostly about about a video, not about the album as a whole. That suggests to me that it would be better to leave the phrase from the Mail out, and just use Metacritic to summarise the critical response to the album, but I do see the advantage of citing a source that uses words, rather than numbers, to summarise the response.VoluntarySlave (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

To riff off of your last point, cases like Metacritic's entry for this album are problematic, because their "generally favorable reviews" summary is contradicted by their "mixed" reviews outnumbering "positive" (one of which--Robert Christgau's review--is erroneously listed as positive). Dan56 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: Robert Christgau actually gives the album a "B" grade in his full review, found on his site, here. And to clarify, Metacritic, unlike other aggregate sites like "Rotten Tomatoes", does not arrive at scores simply by subtracting the amount of negative/mixed reviews from positive ones. They actually find the numeric mean of the scores given by the review sites. For example, consider that the album got 5 different review scores as follows: 90, 90, 30, 40, 45. That would work out to a meta-score of 59, which would denote positive reviews, although the number of negative reviews (3) outnumbered the positive ones (2). The other factor that you have to consider is that on Metacritic, the reviews are weighted differently based on publication. In other words, sources like New York Times, Rolling Stone etc would carry more weight than a source like "Pop Matters" or "Sputnik", simply because of reputation. So if an album is given poor reviews by many less-reputable publications, and few of the highly respected ones rate it favourably, the album would likely receive a higher metacore. And vise-versa. Makes sense? Orane (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Journalist, I pretty much ignored everything you wrote after "numeric mean", because I was aware of their grading system. And to clarify, Christgau's 1990s-to-present grading system reserves "B" and lower grades for "duds"--"a bad record whose details rarely merit further thought" ([15]). When he reviewed this album, he gave it a "B" and named it "dud of the month", but just by actually reading the review you could tell that the last thing it is is positive ([16]). Metacritic made a mistake (erroneously listing it as positive), but that was a side point by me. The main point of this discussion was using what is reported/worded alongside the numbers, which otherwise leave no room for gray areas. Dan56 (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Christgau's reviews are absolute garbage. All one-sided bias taste. None of his reviews are comparable, and none in my eyes are respectable. PS. Using that tabloid as a staple for the album's reviews is beyond unacceptable and stupid. I'm just done arguing with the fucking wall here and having these damn edit wars. Good day.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: There really is no reason to be snarky with me. You made a point about mixed reviews outnumbering positive ones, as if to suggest that this denotes a mixed reception to the album. All I did was try to show you another way of looking at it. If you're aware of Metacritic, then fine. But I didn't get that from the comment you made... Orane (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Tinypic.com

I have raised a concern at RSN in this link about the usage of Tinypic.com as a source for validating Beyonce's certifications in some of the nations where no certification database exists. Based on the responses there, the reference here would be kept/removed. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on I Am... Sasha Fierce. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/top50-2008.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on I Am... Sasha Fierce. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090212001050/http://www.naacpimageawards.net/40/releases/40th_nia_nominees_release.pdf to http://www.naacpimageawards.net/40/releases/40th_nia_nominees_release.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503164723/http://www.grammy.com/nominees to http://www.grammy.com/nominees
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100602125740/http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=61 to http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=61
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123194509/http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=47 to http://www.fimi.it/dett_ddmercato.php?id=47

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the statement "I Am... Sasha Fierce received generally mediocre reviews from critics" be removed?

The consensus is against removing the statement "I Am... Sasha Fierce received generally mediocre reviews from critics". Editors largely supported Dan56's position after he reworded the RfC at 19:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC). There is no consensus to use the "mixed to positive" phrasing.

There is no prejudice against a new RfC to discuss using terms like "mixed" or "mixed to negative" as was suggested by some editors in this RfC but not discussed in depth.

Cunard (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

The sentence in question, attributed to this article by News.com.au which said the album received "lukewarm reviews". Should it be removed? Dan56 (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Note - I've since changed my stance toward a compromise, that "lukewarm reviews" (verbatim, what the source says) be paraphrased as "generally mediocre reviews"; Calvin999 however still is against this wording and preferred the unverifiable "mixed to positive" characterization. Dan56 (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - per my points, outlined and in bold below. Dan56 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:TONE. Summarize the source and choose another word. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Dan56 comment. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my revision history edit summaries and Binksternet. 'Lukewarm' is the wrong terminology; it implies that all critics thought it was lukewarm, which is not accurate. There's nothing wrong with using 'mixed' as it indicates a broad spectrum and positive and negative.  — Calvin999 14:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Now that the goal posts are being moved on a whim, we've got to readjust our positions. I Support the removal and exclusion of both 'lukewarm' and 'mediocire' and replaced with 'mixed to positive' as was originally passed at it's GAR. You don't need to source the overall reception, it's not a requirement. You are allowed to summarise the sentence accordingly (negative, mixed or positive, or a combination of the three) to summarise the sourced section as a whole. The two proposed terms are too ambiguous as Meatgains has stated below.  — Calvin999 08:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Summoned by bot. Too ambiguous and makes an assumption. Meatsgains (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per nominator and his most recent compromise. I've struck through my initial "support" vote above. Meatsgains (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Dan56 comment. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • TheAmazingPeanuts has clarified at his talk page that he supports either "lukewarm" or "mediocre" but not "mixed to positive" ([17]) Dan56 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Honestly, if it were up to me, I'd change it to "mixed to negative", most critics either panned it or called it a mess. [18] Esmost ^πк 23:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Reword it. "Mixed to negative" perhaps. --Jennica✿ ^Talk 03:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Simply "mixed" seems good to me.--MASHAUNIX 17:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – With a word like "mixed" (or more encyclopedic) its okay. Some books like Crazy In Love: The Beyonce Knowles Biography by BBC Contribuitor Daryl Easlea and Beyoncé: Running the World: The Biography support the word "mixed". Chrishonduras (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Calvin999 removed this statement a year ago without consensus, back when it was attributed to a Daily Mail source, complaining that the word "lukewarm" fails to capture the gist of the section it's leading. I restored it, this time citing an article by News.com.au that said the same thing, only to be reverted by Calvin999, who said one word--an unencyclopedic word, in his opinion--cannot summarize an entire section ([19], [20]). Mind you, there are numerous encyclopedias which use this word in this context ([21]) According to Merriam-Webster, "lukewarm" means moderately positive/unenthusiastic/half-hearted. Given the reviews, along with Metacritic's score of 62 (borderline positive by their range of scores), this word seems more than appropriate. Dan56 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add here that the general idea of it receiving average/lukewarm/mediocre reviews is verified by at least three sources (Exclaim!, Daily Mail, News.com.au). Dan56 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Two of which are not reliable sources.  — Calvin999 20:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In your opinion, which means, what was it? "Jack shite"? Dan56 (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, the Reliable Sources Board.  — Calvin999 20:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Point me to the consensus that decided either was unreliable. Dan56 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't need a consensus and I still don't. You're completely missing the point of why I removed it and you still don't get it. You said I don't own the article, but neither do you. But someone else clearly agreed and has changed it now anyway.  — Calvin999 14:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Dan56 haven't you seen the massive thread above about the use of 'lukewarm' from 2 years ago??  — Calvin999 14:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, this was somewhat lame of you; the ownership accusation especially, considering your blog log shows multiple instances of that on your part). And yes, the massive thread above involved @Petergriffin9901: complaining that the Daily Mail was an unreliable tabloid source, nothing related to the kind of verbal sensitivity you've been on about in your edit summaries. And yes, you need consensus, because your "point" is your own opinion or preference, and you have yet to engage any of my points: Dan56 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• 1) Merriam defines the word in a manner making it appropriate in this context, for this album's reception, which according to Metacritic (a source you have not removed, in your position as the article's gatekeeper), was borderline positive (62, on a scale of 100, a scale where "mixed or average" becomes "generally favorable" at 61)... not to mention the reviewers actually writing of the album unenthusiastically or moderately positive! Dan56 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• 2) the phrase "lukewarm reviews" has been used frequently in the same context in print encyclopedias ([22]), thus rendering your position--that it's not encyclopedic--presumptuous and incorrect. Dan56 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what your position originally was, because you bothered saying more at the ANI noticeboard--trying to tell on me like a good little schoolboy--rather than flesh out your combative edit summaries reverting me, which gave the impression you don't want any word summarizing the album's reception: "one source/word doesn't summarise a whole section", was what I believe you said. Perhaps you are missing the point, of RfC's and the consensus-building process? Dan56 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes thank you for pointing out my block log of similar ones to you. Difference is that I didn't edit war or make three reverts in not 24 but 12 hours like you have and did on this occasion. So it seems that at least I have perhaps learned from past incidents. Of course, I expect you to think it was 'lame' of me, I'd hardly imagine that you would praise me for it. If you had asked me instead of reverting me what my position was, I would have made it even more clear and plain to you. This talk page isn't designed for you to spend an hour, judging by the revision history, making points which are irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to make personal jibes at me, I welcome you to post on my talk page instead of clogging this thread up with them. I won't undo them...  — Calvin999 22:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• 3) Calvin999 explained his preference for "mixed" (for which there is no source supporting that terminology) because it captures in his mind the "broad spectrum" of positive and negative reviews while believing that "lukewarm" presumes all reviews were "lukewarm"; wrong on both counts IMO. The statement is phrased "generally lukewarm", and most reviews were just that, neither glowing nor slamming the album. "Mixed" is less accurate because it suggests critics were divided, ranging from positive to negative. That's not really the case: Metacritic's list of reviews shows only 2 that were overtly negative, while most of the other 22 are by definition lukewarm; the ones that are overall positive are half-hearted, and the ones that are more critical aren't outright negative: most of the reviews are quite average, and most of the reviews can be described as "lukewarm" or "average". By definition, "mixed" does not make sense in this context and is not more appropriate than "lukewarm". Dan56 (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You still don't get it. You don't need to source if it was negative, mixed or positive. Drop the 'lukewarm,' it's not encyclopaedic in any sense. This is the revision under which it was made s GA. It says "mixed to positive" as you just said. So, what is your problem with that and why are you so insistent on using such an informal and colloquial word?  — Calvin999 23:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Umm, yes you do need to cite a source. Wikipedia 101: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged..." (WP:V) I made an improvement. Get over it. And you still haven't responded to my second point. If it's so informal and colloquial, then why have other encyclopedias used it? Dan56 (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, you can't support or oppose your own consensus question lol. You clearly want it changed so you don't need to oppose your own statement. Furthermore, you changed to 'mediocre' without consensus, yet you asked me for a consensus to remove 'lukewarm'. That there is the definition of hypocrisy. I've re-instated the sentence which was pass as good in the GA review in 2012. Now you need to get a consensus to change it from what as pass as being good for promotion. Play by the rules you keep saying other needs to play by.  — Calvin999 11:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You cited a good article revision from four years ago (back when standard were lower; "upon" is poor archaic grammar, for instance), yet you cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There's no source that can verify "mixed to positive"; it's your own interpretation (WP:NOR) @Calvin999:. And boy, your attitude just smacks of privilege; the burden was on you to start a discussion, because it was you who removed the statement a year ago without consensus. I cited a reliable source that quite clearly supports the album receiving lukewarm/mediocre reviews. You must be extremely dense and arrogant to believe you can simply remove it without being challenged. Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Change of RfC in midstream. Realizing that consensus was against him, Dan56 changed the RfC to ask about the word "mediocre" rather than the original question which was "lukewarm". That's not how RfCs work around here. The RfC should run its course as written, especially after people have offered their thoughts about the original version. If a different word is under consideration, a second RfC can be mounted. Otherwise, the new word can be discussed as an option under the old RfC. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• So what - Realizing that consensus will likely favor this new word, Binksternet--who had suggested in his vote to use a different word--has out of spite posted this ridiculous rationalization. The only person who voted before this change was @Tomica:, who's welcome to modify or comment on his position again. And big deal. The word means the same fucking thing as "lukewarm". oooooh the controversy, :| I'm sure Binksternet genuinely cares about procedural correctness; I'm sure that's why he gave two fucks about an RfC having been opened and began enforcing his own preferred revision anyway ([23], [24]). Because that's how an RfC (and for that matter the BRD cycle) works, right???? In fact, this remark about RfC procedure is the most energy or level of engagement from him yet here. Cheers buddy. Dan56 (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• The condition of the RfC at the time of your changing the header was as follows:[25] Three people said no to the word "lukewarm" (supporting removal) and two people said keep the word. I'm fine with the word "mediocre" although it can be interpreted as reflecting on the review rather than on the album being reviewed. The problem here is that you changed the RfC in midstride, making the previous votes count for nothing. It shows the level of subjectivity and ownership of your involvement. I think it's time to step back and let the article breathe. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• The condiction of the RfC (an even split of votes among four people) at the time I offered the compromise (in the article), before being reverted by Calvin999, which encouraged me to change the RfC. "The problem here is that you changed the RfC in midstride, making the previous votes count for nothing." Really?? I pinged @Tomica:, but other than you, Calvin, and I, no one else voted at that time. Unless Calvin or you would like to change your votes, then all the votes count. But you, as an expert on RfCs, should know votes aren't all that decides these, right? So please, stop talking nonsense to undermine the RfC. Thanks. Dan56 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Lol you just don't get anything at all do you. You need to open a new RFC with your new proposal, not change the existing but still apply the previous votes! You're undermining your own RFC by keeping on changing the proposal. You haven't even changed the source for mediocre. This is actually comical.  — Calvin999 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

According to whom or what must I open a new RfC? The proposal's the same; "lukewarm" is synonymous with "mediocre". You're not making any sense, just upset and spiteful about things not going your way, I presume. You do know there's a link at WP:RfC to the essay on being open to compromise? Try it. It'd do your soul good. Cheers love. Dan56 (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't change the proposal and still use previous votes. That's gaming the system to your advantage. You're treading on such fine lines at the moment. Lukewarm and mediocre are not the same. ONe has a far more negative sounding connotation than the other. But still, it seems okay for you to change whatever the hell you like without consensus, but no one else. The sentence in question isn't even in the article for anything to look at now. So you are now holding an RFC on content that doesn't exist. Laughable! I think you need to look on how to compromise, because you're not letting anyone else do so. There's a bit of a pattern emerging of you need to take your own advice.  — Calvin999 08:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're unwilling to accept anything I've had to add or say. Btw, could you tell me which editor who voted isn't aware of the compromise I offered? Otherwise, the votes are still valid. Meatsgains and TheAmazingPeanuts voted after I made note of the compromise, I pinged and messaged Tomica, and then it's just you and Bink, who obviously wont budge from your positions. Dan56 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Because you keep changing things, won't listen and don't care about what anyone else has to say but yourself. This RFC has lost all credibility with you keeping on moving the goal posts. You won't let anyone change anything, so it's your who won't accept what anyone else has to say. WP:OWN.  — Calvin999 08:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your summary--"mixed to positive"--is not verified by any source, and it's challengeable; hell, it was challenged! You need to cite a source, per WP:V. I cited a source, but it wasn't good enough WP:OWNBEHAVIOR Dan56 (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not able to be challenged. It is sourced in the article and has been all along but you're too blindsighted to be bothered to see it. I've sourced it as it was anyway with a quoted term which is not ambiguous as stated above by Meatgains and is plain and simple for readers. This discussion is over.  — Calvin999 08:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Metacritic shows 12 "mixed or average" (yellow) reviews to 10 "favorable" (green); many of the positive ones are unenthusiastic, and as you've made it now, the section reads oddly: the album received "generally favorable" reviews, yet neither paragraph in the section summarizing the reviews are very positive; most are critical. It doesn't make sense. The last compromise I'm offering is restoring the source that says "lukewarm reviews" but paraphrasing it as "average reviews". Would "average" be more appropriate for you, or still not good enough for Queen Bey? @Calvin999: Dan56 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

None of them are critical in the sense that they are saying it's awful. They think it's good, not great or unpleasant. It got B's, and 3/5 stars means good. There are no compromises to be made now. It is sourced as passed in the GA review. Deal with it. If you feel the article is not up to scratch, nominate it to be de-listed, work on it head to toe, then re-nominate it. The level of ownership by you is so high at the moment that you are disregarding what the source says and the fact that this is a good article which means it has undergone a review and was passed. Enough with your ownership compromises which facilitate you only. This is done and closed. Drop the stick and move on.  — Calvin999 09:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done and closed; read WP:RFCEND. Dan56 (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It is done. The line and sourced and that is all. You're behaving like a child.  — Calvin999 09:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope. The admin agreed, you shouldn't have removed the tag and should let the RfC run its course. Dan56 (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Dan56 you're just being petty now and it's stupid. Tomica changed it to mixed to positive and added a citation template. In order to remove a CN template from a GA, I added the source back and changed it to what is quoted. But that isn't good enough for you. So you've now added a citation template back again which is making it even worse. Your logic makes no sense: you don't want 'mixed to positive' because it's not sourced but you are now willing to have it there even though the exact words are still not sourced. Make your mind up. WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:OWNERSHIP. You are blatantly disregarding what it says on Metacritic just because you don't agree with it. Well, I'm sorry, but just because you don't agree that the section has a generally favorable tone means absolutely jack shite because your opinion is irrelevant just like every other editor on here when it comes down to sourcing and how to use text. You not liking the term doesn't give you exclusively ownership or say over what happens. Why you are so hell bent on using 'lukewarm' I have no idea, but it is you who has created this mountain out of a molehill. You are now reverting every edit I make out of spite and you are behaving like a child deprived of what it wants after being told no.  — Calvin999 17:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Compromise proposal. Remove the first sentence in its entirety and replace it with "Upon its release, I Am... Sasha Fierce received mixed reviews." NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Based on what source @NewYorkActuary:? Dan56 (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Here we go again. Based on what source did you want to use 'mediocre'?  — Calvin999 09:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Based on what source @NewYorkActuary:? Dan56 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on I Am... Sasha Fierce. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/65sBdDdX7?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinadaily.com.cn%2Fshowbiz%2F2009-10%2F13%2Fcontent_8788039_3.htm to http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/showbiz/2009-10/13/content_8788039_3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110317104133/http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/neighbors/article_da62ec71-408d-5aa3-86e9-7b8cebfd62bf.html to http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/neighbors/article_da62ec71-408d-5aa3-86e9-7b8cebfd62bf.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65sBt3JSy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjam.canoe.ca%2FMusic%2FArtists%2FB%2FBeyonce%2FAlbumReviews%2F2008%2F11%2F18%2F7453821-sun.html to http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Artists/B/Beyonce/AlbumReviews/2008/11/18/7453821-sun.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314145646/http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyonc%C3%A9-release-above-and-beyonce-video-collection-dance-mixes to http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyonc%C3%A9-release-above-and-beyonce-video-collection-dance-mixes
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Beyonc%E9&titel=Sweet+Dreams&cat=s
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617105639/http://www.spin.com/reviews/beyonc%C3%A9-i-am%E2%80%A6sasha-fierce-music-worldcolumbia to http://www.spin.com/reviews/beyonc%C3%A9-i-am%E2%80%A6sasha-fierce-music-worldcolumbia
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120527053948/http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=72 to http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=72
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224191326/http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year=&type=2 to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/pag-259376-Classements-Annuels.html?year=&type=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721081412/http://www.ifpi.gr/chart01_annual.htm to http://www.ifpi.gr/chart01_annual.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fswisscharts.com%2Fyear.asp%3Fkey%3D2009&date=2011-10-02 to http://swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=2009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160125053739/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=83&dfom=20150001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=83&dfom=20150001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on I Am... Sasha Fierce. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/showbiz/2009-10/13/content_8788039_3.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Artists/B/Beyonce/AlbumReviews/2008/11/18/7453821-sun.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707231141/http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyonc%C3%A9-set-release-i-am-yours-intimate-performance-wynn-las-vegas to http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyonc%C3%A9-set-release-i-am-yours-intimate-performance-wynn-las-vegas
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625080202/http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-12-17/music/on-the-method-behind-beyonc-eacute-s-multiple-personality-madness/ to http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-12-17/music/on-the-method-behind-beyonc-eacute-s-multiple-personality-madness/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CrhMwSDf?url=http://www.worldmusicawards.com/ to http://www.worldmusicawards.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927162500/http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp?chartYear=2009&chartKind=A to http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp?chartYear=2009&chartKind=A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011201154/http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/top100/roczna.php?lang=2&idlisty=3 to http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/top100/roczna.php?lang=2&idlisty=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203011257/http://abpd.org.br/downloads/Final2010.pdf to http://abpd.org.br/downloads/Final2010.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on I Am... Sasha Fierce. 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/20110721172536/http://insidetv.ew.com/2008/10/15/split-personali/ to http://insidetv.ew.com/2008/10/15/split-personali/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100814201117/http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/59466/chart-watch-extra-gagas-nice-round-number/?page=2 to http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/59466/chart-watch-extra-gagas-nice-round-number/?page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621062504/http://promusicae.es/files/listasanuales/albumes/Top%2050%20ALBUMES%202009%20.pdf to http://www.promusicae.es/files/listasanuales/albumes/Top%2050%20ALBUMES%202009%20.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719010110/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=83&dfom=20090001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=83&dfom=20090001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=83&dfom=20160001&newi=0&height=420&platform=Win32&browser=MSIE&navi=no&subframe=Mainframe

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on I Am... Sasha Fierce. 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://www.webcitation.org/68Ebcqy2t?url=http://www.beyonceonline.com/it/news/platinum-edition-cd-dvd-di-i-amsasha-fierce to http://www.beyonceonline.com/it/news/platinum-edition-cd-dvd-di-i-amsasha-fierce
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68EhoUSei?url=http://dancemusic.about.com/od/intldancemusicawards/a/2010_International_Dance_Music_Awards_25th_Annual_Nominees_and_Winners.htm to http://dancemusic.about.com/od/intldancemusicawards/a/2010_International_Dance_Music_Awards_25th_Annual_Nominees_and_Winners.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304045018/http://www.ovma.org/pdf/conf_program09.pdf to http://www.ovma.org/pdf/conf_program09.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120526215137/http://yumsshoesandapparel.ning.com/profile/FreakFineman to http://yumsshoesandapparel.ning.com/profile/FreakFineman
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315011537/http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/25945/chart-watch-extra-the-year-that-songs-overtook-albums/ to http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/25945/chart-watch-extra-the-year-that-songs-overtook-albums/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100102023700/http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/26331/week-ending-jan-4-2009-its-taylor-swifts-world to http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/26331/week-ending-jan-4-2009-its-taylor-swifts-world/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715181546/http://riaa.com/newsitem.php?news_month_filter=&news_year_filter=2009&resultpage=&id=17E4008D-D923-24FE-3E2C-A11FCFFC5D7E to http://riaa.com/newsitem.php?news_month_filter=&news_year_filter=2009&resultpage=&id=17E4008D-D923-24FE-3E2C-A11FCFFC5D7E
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68EbtcROC?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/3/2008-11-29/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/3/2008-11-29/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68Ebv2dyM?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/3/2009-08-22/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/3/2009-08-22/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029200146/http://promusicae.es/files/listassemanales/albumes/historial/TOP%20100%20ALBUMES%2009_44.pdf to http://promusicae.es/files/listassemanales/albumes/historial/TOP%20100%20ALBUMES%2009_44.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090919042758/http://www.abpd.org.br/noticias_internas.asp?noticia=178 to http://www.abpd.org.br/noticias_internas.asp?noticia=178
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68EhYTapF?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/23/2009-11-14/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/23/2009-11-14/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706085247/http://www.capif.org.ar/Default.asp?PerDesde_MM=0&PerDesde_AA=0&PerHasta_MM=0&PerHasta_AA=0&interprete=beyonce&album=&LanDesde_MM=0&LanDesde_AA=0&LanHasta_MM=0&LanHasta_AA=0&Galardon=O&Tipo=0&ACCION2=+Buscar+&ACCION=Buscar&CO=5&CODOP=ESOP to http://www.capif.org.ar/Default.asp?PerDesde_MM=0&PerDesde_AA=0&PerHasta_MM=0&PerHasta_AA=0&interprete=beyonce&album=&LanDesde_MM=0&LanDesde_AA=0&LanHasta_MM=0&LanHasta_AA=0&Galardon=O&Tipo=0&ACCION2=+Buscar+&ACCION=Buscar&CO=5&CODOP=ESOP
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626121353/http://www.abpd.org.br/downloads/Final_Publicacao_09_2010_CB.pdf to http://abpd.org.br/downloads/Final_Publicacao_09_2010_CB.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=2009

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)