Wikipedia

Talk:We Found Love

Latest comment: 2 months ago by 2001:861:560B:49C0:FC18:FE2:E53A:4199


Why are Wikipedia pages showing 250k as the Brazilian threshold for diamond? It’s still 160k: https://pro-musicabr.org.br/home/certificados/tabela-de-niveis-de-certificacao-pro-musica/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:861:560B:49C0:FC18:FE2:E53A:4199 (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources for future expansion

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Confirmation of single

edit

Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Singles premiere date/Lyrics/Live performances

edit

Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Composition info/Reviews/Download

edit

Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.217.62.73 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Time to create this page

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The song is probably going to debut in the top 5, so it's certainly notable. KnowitallWiki (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

But it hasn't yet. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
The argument against giving this song iits own page s ridiculously pedantic, but ah well. It'll have one in 2-3 days. Can someone work on trying to improve the article so it's in good shape when finally put up? KnowitallWiki (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
We Found Love has debuted at 14 on the New Zealand Singles Chart. http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp Xavier (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)MR.Texan281Reply
I had already done that. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 09:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

NME Reviews "We Found Love" - Professional Review

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.nme.com/reviews/rihanna/12332 "...Ri-Ri sounds extremely relaxed; her vocal sounds luxurious calling to mind the atmosphere (and the melody) of 'Louds 'Complicated'.The over-all effect is underwhelming. Instead of re-inventing the pop wheel like she's done before (oh hai 'Umbrella') this has a whiff of treading-water about it. If there is a 'goosebump' moment to be had it comes after many multiple plays and, dare we say it, a glass of something strong. " --West231 (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Rolling Stone Magazine - We Found Love (Review)

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/songreviews/we-found-love-20110926 "is much ado about very little indeed. Scottish Euro-dance specialist Calvin Harris tosses pumped-up synths and 4/4 beats at an insipid tune and half-baked romantic catch-phrase - "We found love in a hopeless place" - which RiRi repeats approximately 350 times, hoping it will start to mean something. It's the worst single of Rihanna’s career." --West231 (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Song Writers?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed the page doesn't list any of the writer(s) for the track. Has there been any confirmation as to who wrote the song? Was it Calvin Harris alone? --69.141.188.179 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Credits haven't been released, but we know Calvin Harris produced it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

UK Peak

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We Found Love debuted at number one in UK:

http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/1/11-10-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.90.7 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Australia Peak

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

WFL has peaked at number two this week in Australia, the only source however is a newspaper called The Sunday Telegraph. The paper takes this information stright from ARIA so it is reliable, I just cannot find a website that would pass wikipedia to change it. 58.165.11.23 (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Done. Don't worry, australian-charts.com has been used, which updates every week and has a history of charting for the song. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 00:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Music Video Reception sources.

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agyness Deyn as narrator

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just thought the editors should know that Rihanna stated herself that Agyness Deyn is the voice of the narrator (even though she misspelled her name). Not sure if the horse's mouth isn't credible enough (because you never know with Wikipedia) but I thought you should have the source anyway.--mikomango mwa! 00:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know, I saw the tweet. I've already removed it from the article for being WP:OR. Look at the article's history. And no, WP:TWITTER is not allowed. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 00:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough my darling!!!--mikomango mwa! 11:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agyness Deyn Source

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2011/10/rihannas_new_music_video_featu.html <---- Is this source good enough?--mikomango mwa! 12:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sources for a possible Controversy sub-section.

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Yes, the page is worthy of a Controversy section. I'll work on it, but note to other users, not Calvin, that you shouldn't personally attack me and assume good faith when giving me pointers on how to write "Wiki-Style". Thanks! BenWasHere (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Done! Pretty short, but it gets the point across. BenWasHere (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not at the moment. There isn't enough info for a sub-section, hence why I wrote "Possible sub section. You need to learn to give things time, Ben. There is no rush. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 10:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

When you start a section entitled possible sub-section, I take it that you want it. What would you like me to say? BenWasHere (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

If there is as much controversy info as S&M (song) or Man Down, then it can have a sub section. But if it is just these two sources reporting on the same thing, it is likely to only be 2/3 sentences long, so it might as well be put into the Reception section. But I haven't really looked since the other day, so more info on the group might be available now, I don't know. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

This just in: Leona Lewis claiming she recorded the track with Harris before Rihanna got it. Did not put it anywhere in the Article yet, as I strongly believe it belongs in the Controversy section, which should be created now or should this belong in the Background section? Mikaelazinchenkova (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

What controversy was that? Did Rihanna steal the song from her? Of course not, no one has the guilt that Leona refused to release it as a lead single. It can be placed somewhere, but definitely not controversy. — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thoughts

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Please do not get me wrong but that video screenshot is horrible. It give me creeps. I cannot see it. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 02:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I also share the same opinion. :/ — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
The point of it is to give an example of a hallucination which Rihanna experiences because of the drug taking. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 10:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
But Calvin, such an image can hurt "des ãmes sensibles" and you know better than me that it is true. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

When you start a

This exchange is hilarious!!! I think the video screenshot is creepy (and it gives me the shakes too) but I guess that's the point in its choice? To signify how creepy certain elements of the video were?--mikomango mwa! 23:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Coldplay'

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What does that have to do with We Found Love? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Coldplay cover

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Perhaps the previous post meant to bring your attention to this: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/10/coldplay_we_found_love.html ??? (Coldplay has covered the song.) I'm not sure it warrants an edit, nor is this an edit request, this is just me bringing this to the attention of the main editors of this article.--mikomango mwa! 23:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Should be noted in the article. Whether it's "pretty awful" or not. — Status {talkcontribs 17:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
It can be added when Rihanna performs We Found Love, then it can be a Live performances and covers section. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sorry Status, I didn't mean to upset you by calling the cover "pretty awful" (if you're a Coldplay lover!!!)--mikomango mwa! 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Music video section

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

The section is pretty big, and will probably end up getting bigger. Create into a new article similar to Michael Jackson's Thriller perhaps? With all the controversy surrounding it and background info, it seems like it would be a good idea. — Status {talkcontribs 17:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's no different to Run the World (Girls) or Criminal (Britney Spears song). I just looked at Michael Jackson's Thriller and I think that We Found Love needs more info, as it's not as big as Thiller's. It doesn't have any awards (yet). And how would it impact the Music video section on the We Found Love? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
"Run the World" should probably have its own too. Music video sections are getting WAY too big. There's nothing wrong with that, but it would be so much better if they had their own page. The section on the article would probably have to be shrunken down if it was to go to GA anyway, so it would be a win win to create its own article. The shruken down version could just be used for the article, and then add a nice little "see also" or "futher information" tag. — Status {talkcontribs 17:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Tested it out in my sandbox. — Status {talkcontribs 17:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Compared to Thriller, I don't think there is enough. The section is highly unlikely to get any bigger than what it is now. I think when the video gets some awards, or at least some nominations, it would seem more worth it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Even if it receives awards, it may not need a separate article, right? Unless it turns into a major cultural phenomenon that people can't stop discussing when they discuss the year 2011, the way Thriller impacted its release year and the arc of Michael Jackson's career.--mikomango mwa! 01:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I just think it's far too early to consider it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 01:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Taking into consideration what you are all saying, should "Single Ladies"'s video have its own article then? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I can see Beyonce's "Single Ladies" warranting its own article over "We Found Love" (just yet, at least).--mikomango mwa! 19:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Singles Ladies music video section is nowhere hear the size of what We Found Love, Criminal or Run the World are. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Have you seen the cultural impact of the video, its awards, critical reception, the analysis by critics, etc? That's the kind of video that needs a separate article. If it was as you said, i would have done a separate article for "Run the World". ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
The Singles Ladies section doesn't have the same amount of info as the other three. Run the World should have it's own article I think. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, as long as it did not have a cultural impact like Thriller, that's a big NO for me. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's not solely about cultural impact. The music video subsections are too big for the article now, it should have it's own article, especially as it has had award nominations. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
What? WFL video got an award? Where? If ever you are taking into consideration the controversy it had, i want to remind you that even "Countdown" had a huge controversy. It was even shown on several news channel in Europe and even in my own country (Not a joke). ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) No, I'm talking about Run the World!! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, if it appears on several lists of Best Videos of 2011, i will considering separating it. And now, you tell me. WFL has no award and yet you want a separate article? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I didn't want to make one for We Found Love yet, because it has no awards, but someone added a lot of info about comparisons with Britney's Criminal, and how I think the 5 sub sections are just far too big for the article, it's the biggest music video section I have seen, apart from Thriller, but I don't want to cut any info. So I think it would perhaps benefit from being put into a separate article now. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Start a discussion, like i usually do. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 17:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

"alleged" assault?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

"ex-boyfriend Chris Brown's alleged assault on Rihanna"

In what universe was the assault merely alleged? Did he not ultimately plead guilty and get penalized by the court for his actions? I'm confused by the word "alleged" in this sentence, because it implies that the assault may not have taken place. Allegations are brought before the court, the word "alleged" makes sense if one is describing the initial criminal procedure, but several years after the fact, the word "alleged" seems inappropriate.--mikomango mwa! 15:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Legally you are mean't to say alleged I think, as we as the public, ultimately don't know what really happened. Though I do believe he did assault him. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
To the best of my knowledge, you are legally required to say alleged until the case is closed and the person has been found guilty (Brown plead guilty). This is why you don't see the word "alleged" in every article of or related to the assault that has been published in the last two years, because he was guilty. If the case was still in a California court now, then the word "alleged" would be appropriate. Sorry, but the word "alleged" is not appropriate in this instance as Brown plead guilty and the case was closed. I am requesting that the word "alleged" be removed as Brown was legally found guilty by his own admission.--mikomango mwa! 17:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ask someone else for a third opinion, because I don't know. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Alleged: (adj.) Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed. ... An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified. Brown himself apologized for the incident and the assault was confirmed and charged for. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much Penguin!!! :-) Thank you for making the edit as well. Much obliged!--mikomango mwa! 19:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
It was me who removed "alleged" from the article lol Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thank you my dear! LOL :-)--mikomango mwa! 19:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Genre?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

The genre says electro house and dance-pop. But what I'm trying to say is, I would've never changed the genre if it was in the composition section, sourced. But I want to remove dance-pop in the infobox because there is still another section in the article that has sourced genres. lyriclegendlover (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have no clue what you want to have accomplished here. But, "We Found Love" is slight on lyrical depth, but the dance pop production from Calvin Harris is flawless — Status {talkcontribs 21:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I don't really understand what you are getting at. Also, Status, please check your talk page. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 21:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
What I want to accomplish is removing dance-pop in the infobox, but having it sourced in the composition section, like it already is. lyriclegendlover (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Why do you want to remove it? There is no reason to remove. Songs aren't always just one genre, you know. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 23:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
It sounds more like electro house to me than dance-pop. lyriclegendlover (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's not about what it sounds like to you, it's about what the professional reviewers say it is. Electro-house is in the info box anyway, so I don't see what the problem is? Calvin • TalkThatTalk 23:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
But even if we remove dance-pop from the infobox, it will still be sourced — in the composition section. lyriclegendlover (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
What does that achieve? Nothing, apart from not listing the genre of the song in the info box. I don't understand why you are making such a deal about this. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 23:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
It will still be sourced. Even if we remove dance-pop in the infobox it will still say it — in the composition. lyriclegendlover (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

But I don't understand why you want to remove it? Loads of articles have 2/3/4 genres in the info box, that's the whole point of the parameter, to show the source genres. You have no valid reason to remove it, so know that if you do, then it will be reverted. I'm not going to keep on repeating myself here. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Calvin, I give you: Template:Outdent, with which you can indicate to other editors that you are intentionally outdenting. Readers can follow the thread more easily. (Hope you don't mind me fondling your post to demonstrate it.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

And Ian, I (also) don't understand why you want to remove a sourced genre from the infobox. What's your reasoning? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Genre? 2

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why is there such a complaint about the fact that "dance-pop" and "electro house" should be arranged in a certain order? It's only two genres.
PS: I know that the reason why is because to go in alphabetical order. But I'm still questioning why there is such a huge deal about this. Ian Streeter (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Rules are rules. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 01:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
But there is no rule that covers this! Ian Streeter (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ian its because he doesn't like house music very much, so he doesnt want it infront of dance-pop. --67.215.138.7 (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sources for We Found Love X Factor performance.

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I won't be able to write about this doing, as I'm traveling two hours to see Rihanna in concert AND to meet her! (VIP!), but if anyone does write it today, I will be able to help out tomorrow afternoon. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 12:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Xfactor UK

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

She performed this song on UK's Xfactor today (20 Nov). Not only that but should it be mentioned that it has gone back up to number one in the UK charts. http://music.uk.msn.com/news/rihanna-holds-on-to-number-one-spot-10 --92.7.25.92 (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah we know. It will be added, don't worry. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 23:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks --92.7.25.92 (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Germany

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

WFL is Gold in Germany http://www.musikindustrie.de/gold_platin_datenbank/#topSearch Please add! --93.229.110.23 (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

X Factor Final

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

unmentioned boyce avenue cover

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is Boyce Avenues cover of it not mentioned on here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I3kgbBp6PY&feature=channel_video_title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.208.240.251 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

End of year sources

edit

Calvin • Watch n' Learn

Photos

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Aren't the photos of Whitney, Madonna and Mariah somewhat remote from the subject ? -- Beardo (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dec 28 Sales, at No.2

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.billboard.com/#/news/lmfao-brings-sexy-to-hot-100-summit-1005749952.story Calvin • Watch n' Learn 03:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

BPM and Key

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't have a citation but the bpm is actually 128 (not 120 as stated) and the key is somewhat of a blend between Eb minor and Gb major (not necessarily worth changing, I guess). I would appreciate help finding citations for this because short of me video taping myself listening to the song and showing a metronome, I'm not really sure where to find this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewbo19 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You will have to find a source for it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 04:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Charts

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Personally I do not feel that the following charts need to be here:

Australian Urban Chart - It does not seem significant enough. The main chart is enough and this urban chart is not used on any other Rihanna article.

Poland Dance Top 50 - Again, does not seem significant. Official airplay one is enough.

Romanian Top 100 - Does not ever lead anywhere. If there is no reliable source then it needs deleting.

Venezuala Pop/Rock Songs - If there is no official chart for main singles then there is no need for genred charts apart from the UK and U.S. which are dominant countries.

I will go ahead and delete the Romanian one as it is dead. I have also deleted Brazil as it is another dead link. Can I go ahead and delete the other ones? Assistance needed. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

An overall official chart for main singles does exist for Record Report. It would still be unadvised to remove it at any rate. Typically when a song doesn't chart on the main one, the genre component could be used. Kww knows more about it than I do though, so ask him. Erick (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

C-CLASS

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This was interesting to read. Well done, but I notice it is a C-class article. Surely this is better than a C-class? How do you move it up and get it to good article status? Anyway, good luck, I think I wanna help improve it, but don't know where to start. It looks amazing already! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.77.233 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes I know. I am doing it, don't worry. The song is still making an impact on charts. Aaron • You Da One 18:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Calvin

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is ridiculous! What was wrong with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Found_Love&diff=486240899&oldid=486240648 You gave the explanation Not sourced. You dont even know what you are saying! What do you mean not sourced. I am removing information which is not needed, it doesnt need a source. You are really peeing me off now. JUST WHY CALVIN?!!!! Just because you know i cant rever edits. I want to scream!!!!! I hope this is the reaction you want, because I am here and Im staying so get used to it! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Erm, yes I did give a reason and I don't believe my edits had ANYTHING to do with yours? Who is victimizing now???? Aaron • You Da One 16:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

One of Best-Selling Singles Worlwide

edit

The song has sold 4.5 million in US. 1.3 million in UK. And has around 5 more certifications worldwide.

Top Ingles chart

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been editing the article for both the Mexican and Venezuelan charts and I have a question. Since the Top 20 General Monitor and the Billboard Mexico charts are already listed, I am unsure of adding Monitor Latino Top Ingles chart. I don't want to over flood the already populated chart list, but at the same time, it topped the Ingles chart in Mexico, which what I am asking. EDIT: I've added it, but if it's undesirable, feel free to revert. Erick (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

18 Months

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why does it say not to add 18 Months. Because on other articles, it lists multiple albums songs are on so why not here? 85.210.187.56 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

For the very simple reason that "We Found Love" was only released as a single from Talk That Talk and not from 18 Months. That's the reason it's only mentioned in the text that was later included in the album. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. 85.210.187.56 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

18 Months

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Harris broke the record for the most top ten singles from an album with 8 but only 7 have been released which must mean we found love counts so it should be add right?--Onlythetruthisappropriate (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on We Found Love. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Useful info.

edit
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on We Found Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on We Found Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Certifications Spain, Denmark, New Zealand, Switzerland

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We Found Love is only Platinum in Spain, source: https://www.elportaldemusica.es/single/rihanna-feat-calvin-harris-we-found-love-feat-calvin-harris, https://www.elportaldemusica.es/lists/top-100-canciones/2012/32

Is only 2x Platinum in Denmark, source: http://www.ifpi.dk/search/node?keys=We+Found+Love

Is only 3x Platinum in New Zealand, source: https://nztop40.co.nz/chart/index?chart=1868

Is only 2x Platinum in Switzerland, source: http://swisscharts.com/awards.asp?year=2012


X2franklop (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We_Found_Love&oldid=1240941577"