Talk:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Dance Craze

What is up with the statement "became known for starting the first major dance craze of the millennium and of the internet"? Would that not have been done by Crank That (Soulja Boy) in 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.70.210 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I literally just copied that exact statement and was going to say the exact same thing. I think this hinges on the fact that that is someone else's quote, and it's not really WP's policy to say "However, that person is totally wrong because Soulja Boy happened first", as this violates many guidelines. 98.239.166.251 (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

reception

It's all over the internet, the receptions of the songs "IF I WERE A BOY" AND "SINGLE LADIES", i hope someone could post them here because i'm still in the process of learning how to properly edit the pages with the sources/reference. please can someone post it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlaws001 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood

Nowhere in this article does it mention that it is entirely bollywood inspired, from the music itself right through to the dance moves. I don't know why its not mentioned but its extremely obvious. Could somebody with more knowledge of Knowles please find some comments filling this out and write it in. 220.245.239.93 (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I treated your claim with respect and went and researched it, but found nothing to support your claim. All the reports I found indicate that the choreography was inspired by Bob Fosse and also a style of dancing known as "J-setting". (This info is already noted in the article.)Manning (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

charts

I posted that Single Ladies is #1 on Billboard Airplay Chart, but it keeps getting deleted. Why's that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.37.230 (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a component chart. If the main chart (like the "Hot 100") is listed, we don't list the component charts (like "Hot 100 Airplay" or "Hot 100 Sales"). The only time the component charts are listed is when the single doesn't make the main chart.—Kww(talk) 14:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And why isn't there the fact that Single Ladies is #3 on the Global Charts? http://www.mediatraffic.de/tracks.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.71.145 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

The overall tone of this page is VERY slanted toward a promotional sort of page rather than an unbiased description of the song. I personally find the song to be repetitive and mean-spirited, and have asked others their opinion of the song as well and gotten similar feedback, but this article only covers extremely favorable viewpoints to the exclusion of all else. I feel that it needs to include more examples of why this song might be well-thought-of, rather than simple quotes that say things like "The beat, courtesy of The-Dream and Tricky Stewart, is irresistible and exuberant, the vocal hook is stormy and virtuosic."

It just seems like this article is simply trying to sell the audience on the song rather than be a simple neutral descriptor of the song. -- Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.126.241 (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is page is still in progress. The line "The beat, courtesy of The-Dream and Tricky Stewart, is irresistible and exuberant, the vocal hook is stormy and virtuosic." is not Wikipedia's but of Rolling Stone's. Its under critical reception. IMO, the article is generally balanced. --Efe (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Although I can see it seems to follow a template in its sections, as seen in its Table of Contents, the overall tone of the article comes across as if this song was delievered from Heaven. For example.... under Cultural impact
"Single Ladies" has gained widespread popularity, with the catchy refrain "If you liked it, then you shoulda put a ring on it".
It seems already obvious that it hs some popularity with it already being stated earlier in the article that it is a top 10 hit. So why the additional emphasis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.126.241 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Also I want to quote a blog from someone... I have no association at all with them, but I tend to agree with their analysis of the song.
"First of all, the title Single Ladies (put a ring on it) objectifies women by making them an 'it.' Also rings are often a way of signifying ownership (women wear engagement rings and not men). The optimist in me wants to believe that Beyonce or whoever wrote the song meant the message to be a positive one that calls men out on disrespective behavior and their habit of stringing along women with no intention of ever committing...I just think that lyrically there is a better way to acheive that message." [1] -- Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.126.241 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
That's what I said as well. Referring to herself as "it" is the definition of objectification. How more could one objectify themselves than to use a pronoun one uses to describe objects? It takes away her humanity and leaves her as nothing more than a piece of furniture for her man. This is so incredibly obvious to anything more than a superficial reading of the lyrics --129.100.156.185 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the term "catchy"; indeed, it was a POV. Thanks for providing the link but we can't use it per WP:Reliable Source. --Efe (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This should not even be up for discussion. First off, the tag was placed in the article not because the article is POV, but because 68.97.126.241/Scott dislikes the song and disagrees with critic's love of it! He hasn't shown how the article is flawed and unbalanced, and has cited his own personal feelings towards the song: "I personally find the song to be repetitive and mean-spirited, and have asked others their opinion of the song as well and gotten similar feedback". Wikipedia deals with published sources from professionals, not individual pet peeves. In addition, personal messageboards of people complaining about the song (as if the have nothing better to do with their time), have no weight in the issue. Orane (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The IP was only pointing to critics' comments and the cultural impact but he generally reduced the tone into being POVic. --Efe (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may address a few points about the song that people seem to have a problem with. Above, Scott states that the song objectifies women by calling them an "it". But I tend to disagree with this. The line goes, "If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it." The first 'it' refers not to women, but to the relationship/what they had, and the second 'it' refers to her wedding finger/left hand (hence the point of her constantly holding up her hand and pointing to her finger). So, in essence, the lyrics mean "If you liked what we hand, then you should have put a ring on my finger". But that isn't very catchy now, is it?

Secondly, people keep saying that the song isn't about female empowerment. But it is. The song is about a woman who "cried her tears" and gave her partner "three good years", but decided that enough is enough. She is going to move on. If he wants her back, too bad, because he had his chance. Orane (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Journalist. It is completely clear from the article what the song means and why is it about women's empowerment. Maybe to settle the matter a line explaining what "If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it" actually means so that thre won't be any confusion. Cheers all. "Legolas" (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Just for giggles, I like to imagine the ex in this song as having a serious hand or finger fetish which Beyonce was happy to indulge as long as she thought the relationship was going somewhere. That line makes perfect sense then. 122.58.32.222 (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Empowering"?

I have to agree with the comment above that this song is not "empowering". Aside from the fact that history will not judge the word "empowering" kindly, ask an Afghan widow or a Somali rape victim if she finds this song "empowering". What it's basically saying is that what women want from men is a ring on the finger. Now, what's "empowering" about that? Not really about real relationships, is it? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great song, but the article itself is embarrassingly long for something so slight and I don't think it can really bear the weight that's being put on it to be "empowering". LottieP (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article is too long. The tune is catchy, the lyrics fit the tune, but I think the most impressive and fantastic part of this song is the choreography. Angry bee (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"One dancer is a man" rumour

I have mixed feelings about whether this even merits inclusion, so I'll stick it here in the talk page. There seems to be a persistent rumour that one of the dancers in the video is a man in drag or a transexual. This is not the case according to Beyonce's publicist - see this Chicago Tribune article. Manning (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Certification

The single has reached 4x Platinum in the master ring tone format. See this. How do we treat this? The infobox remains 2x Platinum. Thanks. --203.177.74.138 (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Glove

What is the significance of the metallic glove? Why is she wearing it? Whose idea was it? What was their intention? 211.28.129.218 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

theory. --79.166.179.37 (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


DOUG E. FRESH AND SLICK RICK

This whole long article and it doesn't even mention these guys, whose beat is sampled throughout "Put a Ring on it", and plays alone the beginning. It's from "The Show" by Doug E. Fresh and Slick Rick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.88.225 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not hearing that at all. Both songs start with electronic drum beats. Doug E. Fresh's "The Show" opening drum riff is syncopated and off the main beat (and repeats) and then the beatbox mixing takes over. The persistent rhythm of "Single Ladies" is digital handclaps with a fill-in "swirl" sound that is right on the beat and stays that way throughout the song. -- Valsadie (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


"Single sequence"

The article says the video was shot as a "single sequence". Does this mean the same thing as a single take? What is the source for this? There's certainly a lot of cuts, so if it really is a single take it's not inherently obvious and we could use a citation. (Didn't find anything authoritative in the first page of Googles.) --Chinasaur (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-SlfHHd3qI Can someone add this or some other citation? --Chinasaur (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


J-setting only in Atlanta?

The article seems to suggest that the J-setting dance craze is only in Atlanta, but I've noticed it in other gay clubs around the South as well. -- Ajharris78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC).


Comparison to T'ain't What You Do (It's the Way That You Do It)

Your Wikipedia entry for the song T'ain't_What_You_Do_(It's_the_Way_That_You_Do_It) just outright says: 

    The song has formed much of the rhythmical and melodic basis for a song by Beyoncé - Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It).

Come on, really?? There's no proof of that whatsoever! Not one of the song's four writers has ever mentioned anything like that, and they've been pretty forthcoming about everything to do with this song. -- Valsadie (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you see unsourced information, be bold and remove them. (I removed that line on that article). TbhotchTalk C. 19:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

2011 r'n'b charts

beyonce's had a number of new/re-entrys in the u.k r'n'b charts can someone add this?!.. link below!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/rnbsingles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.181.188 (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

All the pregnant ladies

Is this worth mentioning? Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No. If it had received heaps of attention from high-quality sources, then maybe, but since it hasn't... —Andrewstalk 07:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What an amazing coincidence!!!!!!!!!!

The song re-entered the UK Singles chart at number 75, marking its 75th week on the chart. Interesting enough to be mentioned? Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

iMO, its of trivial importance. --Efe (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Lol, i know now. It takes time to grow as an editor. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

May be useful

★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 07:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

All  Done Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Worth adding or not?

★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Remakes still coming in

★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 00:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian actress (i think)


★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Shield + Somethng that could be added (?)

Jivesh 1205 (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

  • All the Pringle Ladies

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Background and release

"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" was written by Beyoncé Knowles, The-Dream, Kuk Harrell and Christopher Stewart, and was produced by The-Dream and Stewart. Recorded in April 2008 at the The Boom Boom Room Studio in Burbank, California, the song was mixed by Jaycen Joshua and Dave Pensado, with assistance from Randy Urbanski and Andrew Wuepper.[1]

The-Dream conceptualized "Single Ladies" after Knowles' secret marriage to hip hop recording artist Jay-Z in April 2008.[2][3][2] Stewart commented that the song was "the only public statement that [Knowles and Jay-Z] ever made about marriage,"[2] and that while in the studio recording the song, Knowles had remained tightlipped about her marriage, even to the point of removing her wedding band.[2] The-Dream was inspired to compose the song because it explored an issue that affected the relationships of many people: the fear or unwillingness of men to commit.[2] In an interview with Billboard, Knowles added that she was drawn to the song because of the universality of the topic, and that it was an issue that "people are passionate about and want to talk about and debate."[4] She stated that although it was a playful uptempo song, it addressed a serious issue that women went through everyday.[4]

"Single Ladies" appears on the second disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce because Knowles portrays her alter ego, Sasha Fierce, in the song.[5] Chosen to be the two lead singles from I Am... Sasha Fierce, "Single Ladies" and "If I Were a Boy" were released simultaneously to demonstrate the concept of dueling personalities of the singer.[6] This reinforced the theme of the album, which was created by placing its ballads and up-tempo tracks on separate discs.[7] The singles debuted on US radio on October 8, 2008;[8] "Single Ladies" did so on mainstream urban New York radio station Power 105.1.[9] Both singles were added to rhythmic contemporary radio playlists on October 12, 2008;[10] "Single Ladies" was also sent to urban contemporary playlists the same day,[11] while "If I Were a Boy" was instead classified for contemporary hit radio.[12] The two songs were released as a double A-side single on November 7, 2008 in Australia,[13] New Zealand,[14] and Germany.[15] Dance remixes of the song were made available in the US on February 10, 2009,[16] and in Europe on February 16, 2009.[17] "Single Ladies" was not originally released as a single in the UK; however, the song became increasingly popular there and reached the top ten in the UK Singles Chart from download sales as an album track.[18] On February 16 it was released as a CD single and the dance remixes were released by means of digital download.[19][20]

This one was a bit tricky, and I had to cut it down a bit. But I think the general idea remains intact. I did not edit the third paragraph. However, it may need a copy-edit for clarity etc. I have limited access to a computer right now, because my laptop went awol (currently using my Dad's PC), and will not turn on (Never get a Dell!!!). Orane (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

X Factor 2011: Raffaela Wais sings "Single Ladies" by Beyonce

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done as source is not reliable (i think). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bon Iver's Justin Vernon Defends Kanye West, Says Beyonce Had The Best Video Of The Decade

[3]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


Pamplemousse cover + review

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Single take?

The article says that the video was shot in a single take ( "... only one take was used in the final cut") and for verification cites an NPR radio review by Andrea Seabrook. The source of "single take" statement is not a producer or choreographer (Seabrook does not interview anyone in the radio review), but the reporter herself just makes the claim. But the video clearly shows a discontinuity at 1:01 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1EFMoRFvY. I'm guessing that the "single take" assertion is just puffery, repeated by eager fans. I know that WP:Verifiability says that the standard is "verifiability, not truth". But when the discontinuity is plainly obvious (an outfit is adjusted at 1:01) then the "single take" material needs better sourcing that a radio reviewer's own unattributed assessment. And, even if additional sources are found, the article should use wording like "... is claimed by [notable person X] to have been shot in a single take ..." to indicate the possibility of puffery. --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what is in the source and you said it yourself... WP:Verifiability says that the standard is "verifiability, not truth". I am also against this criteria but i am always ignored. So i don't understand why you should be an exception. The source is reliable... and that's what matters. YouTube cannot be used as a source here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure, NPR is reliable, but the radio interview is an entertainment piece, and puffery is very likely involved, and the ultimate source is not identified (which person involved with shooting the video made the original assertion?). What do you think of re-inserting the sentence with the word "claimed" in it? --Noleander (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The person giving the interview is the choreographer. Were you on the set of the video? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
No, the reporter says ".. shot it in one take". The choreographer simply says that they were "… getting down the whole time with no cuts …". There is a big difference. The choreographer is saying, I believe, that they filmed several full performances, each shot without interruption. But then they spliced the various takes together for the final video. That is different than the footage of the final video being from a single, continuous take. --Noleander (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
And sorry for my language but the interviewer is not a pedestrian or a fanatic. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a notice at the RS noticeboard here ... this kind of issue must have arisen many times before, when marketing material gets repeated by reliable sources, so maybe some other editors can offer advice. --Noleander (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, i don't know what to say, except that you are complicating things for me. Sorry for my honesty. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I found this. Although I wanted the video to feel like it was one continuous take, on the shoot day we decided to split the song into three parts. Meaning that it was not one take, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we have the choreographer saying that they filmed several full performances "with no cuts", and the reporter and fans misunderstood that and repeated it as "filmed in a single take". So this article should probably just be silent on the matter; or else repeat exactly what the choreographer said (but that could cause more confusion that it solves). Or, keep looking for more sources on the issue. --Noleander (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
They have recorded the video several times in twelve hours and edited the one that was perfect. If they did something wrong, they had to start again from the beginning. There were different cameras probably running at the same time. So of course you will have a few different shots. Listen, i believe i was clear enough. I don't know how many times you have watched the video not what you have read about it but i know enough about it and i have sourced everything. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't take it so personally: you've done great work producing an excellent article, but the "single take" assertion is very dubious. Why don't we wait for some more editors to give their thoughts? The RS notice was just issued ... it may take several days to get more input. There is no rush. --Noleander (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing my hard work. Listen, i do not want to be rude but do you follow the music industry? I mean songs, videos, singers, etc? This is currently at FAC, and these things are not making me feel comfortable. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to look for an interview by Knowles (I pray there is one). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This is simply an issue of how to handle RSs that are repeating, apparently, marketing puffery. The video appears to be a single take; and it was intended to give that vibe, and maybe the PR people put out that rumor, but that doesn't mean it should go in the article. There is no rush. Your work on the encyclopedia is outstanding, and this is not really a big deal. Even finding 10 more sources that repeat this apparent puffery won't resolve it, unless they go into detail to contrast the concept of filming several continuous performances (without interruptions) with the concept of the final video entirely originating in a single take. I suggest we just wait for other editors to provide input. --Noleander (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This Slant Magazine source here says about the video: "When a director chooses not to cut, to create a single-take, long take, or even, the feigned single-take—a recent music video trope and the best way to describe the editing in "Single Ladies"—the aim's usually for elegance and cohesion. Not so much here, where some rarified mix of performer exuberance and directorial subtlety meet up to create the feeling of a single-take while fitting-in all the visceral thrills of quick-cutting." (Bold emphasis added by me). I think this suggests that multiple takes were combined to give the illusion of a single take. --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you please add this information the article then? I mean, try to do it in your own words,. Please do me this favor. I will format the reference if needed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I am waiting for your addition before thanking you. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Noleander (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I moved the information for a better flow. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To remeber

[5]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Little girl dance video

Should this be mentioned under covers or parodies?

[6]

[7]

TCO (Reviews needed) 02:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The section is actually called "Parodies and hommages," and yes, I think it should be mentioned, because it's a counterweight to the mention of positive media coverage for young girls imitating the choreography of the song's video. I don't think it's neutral to suggest that there was no backlash against that phenomenon – there was, quite notably. Accedietalk to me 03:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, maybe. I hope there was more than that one story. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree with Accedie. Note that this was not in the article when I nominated it for FAC. I think two or three reviewers recommended its addition. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

[8], [9], [10], [11].

(I actually wasn't pushing it. Just wanted to see what you all said. Do what is best for the article.)

The source cited above were removed for over-linking. I was told not to lay too much emphasis on it unless the girls one day form a group and become singers. You can see the PRs the articles got. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"filmed without ... cuts, or changes to ... lighting"

Not really sure what that means, since there are definitely cuts in the video, and the lights are turned up and down several times... AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There were none and this is what made the video special. You can check the sources. In 12 hours, the video was shot in full several times and the best shot was then chosen as the official video. And this has already been discussed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Dude, if you just keep your eyes open, there are a number of cuts, including a section in the second half of the song where there are many cuts within the space of a few seconds. And the lights are turned up and down several times. So the assertion remains extremely dubious... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I went by what the source said. I cannot put my own interpretation. That's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. However, I still cannot part of what you wrote. You may as well be wrong. I mean I prefer the believe the director's words over yours. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you actually ever seen the video, and were you paying attention to anything other than the cut of her leotards if you did see it?? In any case, you making flat assertions and dogmatic pronouncements that something does not exist when I've seen it exist multiple times with my own eyes really does nothing whatsoever to create a constructive atmosphere for fruitful article collaboration...
To move forward -- yes it's obvious that the video is somewhat minimalistic. However, the article's wording in its current form does not accurately describe that minimalism. Therefore, the wording needs to be changed to something which is accurate -- and you stating that something is true when millions of people can see with their own eyes that it's not true really does nothing to settle the problem or advance the conversation. AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh listen, there is no need to adopt this tone with me. I go by what reliable sources say. If you can find me a source to support your assertions, I will be very happy. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Glee

The song was used again on Glee on the episode "Goodbye (Glee)" from season 3. My love is love (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Other notable parodies
  • [12]
  • Also, The "Single Ladies" dance was referenced in ABC's Family new movie, "The Mistle-Tones."
  • [13]
  • [14]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Use at wedding receptions as call to catch the bouquet

As a personal observation, at every wedding I have attended since this song was released it has been played to call all the single women to assemble for the bride's throwing of the bouquet. And as soon as it started, every girl there knew exactly what it meant and would get up and move into place to catch the bouquet. I think this is a pretty major cultural use, at least in the United States, and there is no mention of it in the article . My observation is anecdotal but does seem to be supported by various DJ sites discussing music for the “Bouquet Toss”. I'm not sure I want to tackle this, but before this article appears as the feature article it seems to me there should be some mention of this.Ray Trygstad (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If reliable references exist (beyond forums or blogs of non-reliable people), it can be added to the cultural impact section. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"If you like it..." vs. "If you liked it..."

I noticed the TFA blurb for tomorrow (soon to be today), reflecting the article, says the signature line of the song is "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it". It seems more logical (and grammatically correct?) to me that it would be "If you liked it..." Is there a source showing that the former -- the version in the article and on the Main Page -- is actually the phrase as sung? -- tariqabjotu 23:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Composer names

The article doesn't maintain consistency about the composers' names. When first mentioned theyhave nicknames (Clark "Superman" Kent style) as a link. A couple of paragraphs later they are the link Clark Kent and in the body of the text it is often just the nickname ("Superman" style). The album article doesn't dwell on the nicknames, gives full names first and later references via surname. I think that is much mor lreadable and less confusing. Shouldm that edit be done here? -- SGBailey (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

does this belong in the article?

I only mention this because it wound up garnering the subject an interview on the CBS Early Show.

Here's the Youtube video of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpydVwVUrUQ

And here's the brief run-down, if you can't watch the video right now. (And I realize that if I wrote this up, it'd need to be more neutral and less conversational.)

Carlos Whitaker and his family were riding in their car when "Single Ladies" came on the radio. Whitaker's two daughters and his 3-year-old son, Losiah, were singing along to the song. Carlos told Losiah that he wasn't a single lady, and it broke the poor kid's confused heart. Whitaker captured the whole thing on video -- he videos a lot of his daily life -- and the resulting Youtube clip ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9eL3ejXmE ) went viral (over 6.4 million views since posted in March 2010). Within a couple days of posting, the video caught the eye of The Eye and landed the Whitakers an interview, where they got to tell the back story and raise a bit of awareness about adoption (Losiah is adopted).

So is this significant enough to be cited on this page? If so, what category would it be put under?

If nothing else, I hope you enjoy the video. ;-)

Bwsqrd (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Really?

Enough. BencherliteTalk 12:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Does a pop song, no matter how popular for the moment, but one that will be forgotten in a couple of years, really warrant this many words? Really? Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. A bunch of boring blather. Sca (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
A dedicated fan is a dangerous thing. Th4n3r (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm impressed by the number of references, and would give props to the author. This is a fantastic article about a song that would otherwise be entirely meaningless to me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that word count of an article depends on how popular or long-lasting something is. Please, continue. Status 23:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You do realize if there was a problem, it wouldn't be a featured article right? I advise you to carry along now and don't bitch about amazing articles that happen to be about something you don't like. "A bunch of boring blather", "A dedicated fan is a dangerous thing"... Status 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This string is boring blather, while the song (like it or not) will be around for many years to come. So, don't worry about them...--Chimino (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ugh, you teeny bobbers are just the worst. Th4n3r (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, I thought that people who believe other people is interesed to know their opinions were the worst. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Why bother with shit like this when you don't care about Knowles or the song? The article looks perfect and that's the reason it is one of the best works on Wikipedia. Just go away and watch your interests. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Single Ladies" to be redirected here

I opened a WP:RM discussion at Talk:Single Ladies to redirect the page "Single Ladies" here. I consider that this song is the primary topic. If you want, you can join the discussion and give your opinion or thoughts. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

PSY Pays Tribute to Beyonce At South Korea Concert, Debuts 'Gentleman' Live

My love is love (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

VH1's Best Video of the Year VMA Winner

[15] —JennKR | ☎ 17:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

Here, I attempted to condense the lead, trimming down on unnecessary detail reserved for the article body, making grammatical fixes, adding an attribution tag for an unattributed quote, and making the lead more easily readable overall. Tomica took issue with this, reverting my changes just a few minutes later without explaining what was wrong with my edits - it seemed more like an arbitrary attempt to maintain the status quo (WP:OWN and WP:IDLI come to mind). With this in mind, I reverted, as I didn't see a logical reason for Tomica's revert, but lo and behold, I was reverted yet again right away. I'm not going to edit war over this, but rather, I would like to discuss with Tomica and others the benefits of having a longer lead at the expense of concision and serving the reader best.

So, Tomica, how does having the longer lead serve readers better? –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, it appears I'm not the only one who thinks the word count is a little high here. (see #Really?) –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Although you say I didn't reply anything, I wrote this: An article with a size of 142kb can have a 4 paragraph lead and there is nothing wrong with it, + have in mind this is a FA! And I don't know what you didn't understand? Long articles does not necessarily need to have 3 paragraphs, they can also have 4+ if the content approves it. I am sure you didn't even bother to read the article before trimming... Also this is a featured article (see the bronze star and WP:FA), one of the best made on Wikipedia, it was promoted in 2011 and the song is from 2008, what improvement does this need? [forgot to say, it's also well maintained with years] The later question of yours sounds like a WP:POV, but yeah, long lead can serve readers better if it has a quality like this one. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
What don't you understand? I said your edit summary did not explain what was wrong with my edit, and it didn't. It explained what was right (in your opinion) about the previous version, without giving any consideration to the changes made (to the point that you even removed a valid "attribution needed" tag). Also, have you ever noticed the message at the top of this talk page? Despite being a featured article, the template says, "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." Featured articles are not perfect and can still be edited. Bold editing is what helps the encyclopedia improve; OWN and IDLI behavior such as yours halts progress.
You also failed to answer the question: how does a longer lead serve readers better? MOS:INTRO says that a good lead should provide an "accessible overview" - I have made the point that trimming the fat will make the overview more accessible. What is your point? –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Who asked you in the first question that you should trim the lead of a featured article (Which is well written)? And what's wrong with the lead again? It's more than accessible according me and according 10+ users who voted on the FAC! That is my answer. Plus, your edits made the reading so poor, that is not even FA worthy lead anymore. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
No one may have asked me to trim the lead, but again, that is bold editing, which is encouraged here. What is wrong with the lead? I'll tell you: it's too long, it repeats too much of the article body (it's supposed to be a summary, not near-repetition), and some of it is clunky and awkwardly worded. I would like you to explain how my edits made the reading poor, especially when not too terribly much of the existing text was touched (it was either trimmed or slightly reworded). –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me just say you one thing, that your boldness can bring you to ANI, by me or whoever else, because of your "pretty" behavior. Ok, so let me ask you, have you ever worked on a featured article? Have you ever nominated one? Have you ever got one? According to your talk page, NO! About what fucking repetition you are talking? I told ya, it's obvious you didn't even read the article. Trimming or "slight-rewording" as you say can make an article be close to FAR rather than FA! And this is my last comment, I am not talking with FA inexperienced users anymore. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Since it's apparent you're not willing to engage in a civil, polite, mature discussion or explain your point without making attacks on me and my contributions, I have listed this at WP:3O, and other editors are welcome to give their input. I have no further interest in responding to you until you stop with your hostile, inappropriate behavior. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw this listed at 3O, but will leave it for another 3O volunteer for a response after I make these comments. I'm not a frequent FA worker, but I am very familiar with Wikipedia policy, being the third most frequent contributor to 3O, one of the founders of DRN and the most frequent contributor there, and a member (and current chairperson) of the Mediation Committee. I'm not speaking in any of those capacities or on behalf of any of those forums, but only mention it to demonstrate that I generally know what I'm talking about. And one of the things that I know, or at least I believe I know, is that there is nothing in policy or guidelines which make FA articles petrified and impervious to further editing. What I'm seeing in this discussion isn't a rational discussion of this article based on what's best and what's not so good based on what's been boldly proposed by an editor, but instead a bunch of defensive posturing not based in any policy or guidelines that amounts to page ownership. Whether the proposing editor has had any previous experience on FA articles, or is familiar or not with the subject matter of this article, is absolutely irrelevant: this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that includes FA articles. There is no doubt here that as the editor proposing the changes that Chasewc91 has the burden of getting consensus for them since Tomica has objected to them (even though there was only a smidge of substance in his objections), but Tomica has the obligation of either discussing them dispassionately on the substantive reasons why or why not they're good or just being quiet. If he doesn't care to engage in a substantive manner, then I'd suggest that Chasewc91 file an RFC on the question of whether the existing lede or his proposed rewrite of the lede is the better choice for the article. I actually neither have nor express an opinion on that issue (though I reserve the right to do so later if I care to do so), but the page ownership and incivility here needs to stop. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

3O Response: Ok, first off, I can tell that both of you mean well. I think Chase's edits were a well-intentioned effort to improve the lede. I think Tomical's reaction on this talk page has been a little hostile, but at the same time he is understandably trying to hold this article to featured article standards.

I agree with Chase that the lede was a little long with some awkward wording. For example,

"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song from Beyoncé's third album I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008).

is an improvement over

"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song recorded by American singer Beyoncé from her third studio album, I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008).

Both those sentences convey the same information, however the first one does it in a more concise and accessible style, avoiding the passive voice.

However, not all the changes Chase made are equally beneficial. I thought I saw at least one place where Chase's version condensed by making use of contractions, which are generally to be avoided in formal writing, including encyclopedias. See MOS:CONTRACTION. However, I can't find it now, so maybe I was wrong.

One place where Chase's version falls short is this sentence:

The song – written by Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell and Beyoncé – was inspired by her 2008 marriage to Jay-Z and discusses men's unwillingness to commit.

The previous version:

Inspired by her secret marriage to Jay-Z in April 2008, the song explores men's unwillingness to commit, a topic that motivated Beyoncé to write "Single Ladies", "the only public statement [she and Jay-Z] ever made about marriage".[1] Composed by Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell and Beyoncé, "Single Ladies" is a dance-pop and R&B song with dancehall, disco and bounce influences.

is definitely wordier; and maybe could be condensed a little. However, Chase combined two completely unrelated thoughts that belong in separate sentences into a single sentence using awkwardly placed en dashes. Moreover, some of the information Chase removed, such as information about what musical style the song is, is information that is needed in the lede section of an article about an influential song. Chase's version neglects to put that information in the lede at all. Personally, I'd reword it something like this:

"Single Ladies" is a dance-pop and R&B song with dancehall, disco and bounce influences. It was composed by Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, Thaddis "Kuk" Harrell and Beyoncé. Beyoncé was inspired to write "Single Ladies" after her marriage to Jay-Z. It explores the unwillingness of men to commit to marriage.

Hopefully this helps and has given you both some ideas. Neither version of the lede is perfect, and if you work together instead of fighting each other, hopefully you'll be able to improve what is already an excellent article still further. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Thank you so much for your input. In fact you saw what I wanted to say about his edits and the prose. I copy-edited the article according to your comments. All the best! — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, TransporterMan and ONUnicorn. The contraction was actually in place from the original lead; I haven't checked but I presume Tomica has fixed it. I'll look at your comments more closely and work further on the lead later. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
After several small changes (as opposed to one large change) and some compromises with Tomica, I'm fairly happy with this version. I would like the third paragraph to be trimmed more, but Tomica is adamant about including excessive statistics about the song's US performance that comes across as WP:UNDUE and too much detail for the lead. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


I honestly don't see what was so bad about the original lead I wrote while taking this article to FAC. I agree the opening sentence was not exactly grammatically correct but I don't necessarily agree about the rest. Why can't a 142kb article have a four paragraphs lead of at least 5 sentences each rather than having ones with three sentences? And with all the respect I owe to Chase (and I partially appreciate your input), maybe you could use your "encouraged bold editing" on articles which have not yet been promoted to featured status. That would help a lot. Thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand that it may be frustrating to see a part of an article you worked so hard on change so drastically, but that's how Wikipedia works, and I'm afraid it's not fair to discourage editors from contributing. All articles can be improved, even featured articles. I saw a lead that needed to be trimmed and I chose to work on it. To quote Bobby Brown... that's my prerogative. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily the length of four paragraphs with five sentences each that is the issue. It's about that the information in those sentences being noteworthy enough to be included in the lead. For example info such as all the composers and several news sources that covered the song are not. Also conclusions drawn from the info below such as the statement "It was inspired by her marriage to Jay-Z" from "Stewart commented that the song was 'the only public statement that [Beyoncé and Jay-Z had] ever made about marriage'...." is speculation on the part of Stewart and shouldn't be included in the lead in that form per WP:NOR. Also fixed some minor Neutrality when talk about the critics and media sources as not to imply that is was universally liked without exception per WP:NPOV. Some other info was also removed such as "Bob Fosse's 1969 dance routine 'Mexican Breakfast' inspired its J-Setting dance choreography." which is great for the body of the article, but really is too specific for the lead per WP:UNDUE. Now if at certain points someone thinks WP:MOSINTRO comes into play and wants to add some more specific info back that's fine, as long as it doesn't become too specific and potentially cause the reader to lose interest per WP:LEADLENGTH. It felt very much in it's previous form that it was overly specific simply to increase the length of the paragraphs and meet a preformed idea of "four paragraphs lead of at least 5 sentences" stated above without concern for content. The current revision addresses the aforementioned problems and more. —Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 00:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Stewart conundrum and name usage unity throughout

"Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" was written by Beyoncé, Terius Nash, Thaddis Harrell and Christopher Stewart, and was produced by
 The-Dream and Tricky Stewart. Beyoncé recorded the song in April 2008 at the The Boom Boom Room Studio in Burbank, California,
 and it was mixed by Jaycen Joshua and Dave Pensado, with assistance from Randy Urbanski and Andrew Wuepper.[2] The-Dream conceptualized
 "Single Ladies" after Beyoncé's secret marriage to hip hop recording artist Jay-Z in April 2008.[3][4] Stewart commented that the song was
 "the only public statement that [Beyoncé and Jay-Z had] ever made about marriage",[3] and that while in the studio recording the song Beyoncé
 had remained tightlipped, even to the point of removing her wedding band.[3]

Which Stewart made the statement, two are mentioned Christopher Stewart and Tricky Stewart. I think it should be clarified, and don't have the time or interest at the moment to dig through the sources. If someone wants to fix this, it would be much appreciated. —Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 00:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. There is one person: Christopher "Tricky" Stewart. I have clarified this in the article. Adabow (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Made an effort to unify the form in which the names are used throughout as well, seems much better now. —Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 08:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

xkcd: Single Ladies

I wonder if xkcd #712 (see explanation) is worth listing under “Cultural impact”. Its depiction of Sauron and the mental leap towards the forging of the One Ring is surely an interesting aspect of this R&B song. -- Gohnarch░ 20:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It). 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, 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

October 8 or 12

For years now, this article has said the song was released as a single on October 12. The reference for that does not support the date: R&R Going for Adds. Rather, the reference shows some songs that were added to the "Rhythmic" radio playlist during the week ending October 13. So the date could be from October 7 to 13.

Lots of media reports date the song from October 8. To me it looks like we should be telling the reader that the first airdate was October 8, and stick with that. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It). 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: 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) 03:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Booklet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d e Herndon, Jessica (January 1, 2010). "Inside Story: The Making of Beyoncé's 'Single Ladies'". People. Time Inc. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  3. ^ Helling, Steve (April 22, 2008). "Beyoncé and Jay-Z File Signed Marriage License". People. Time Inc. Retrieved April 23, 2008.
  4. ^ a b Mitchell, Gail (October 2, 2009). "Beyonce: The Billboard Q&A". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media. Retrieved December 23, 2010.
  5. ^ Montgomery, James (December 15, 2008). "Britney? Beyonce? Who Is MTV News' Woman Of The Year? The Countdown Begins Today!". MTV News. Viacom. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference mtv1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Vineyard, Jennifer (October 23, 2008). "Beyonce Album Preview: I Am ... Sasha Fierce Shines Light On B's Alter Ego". MTV News. Viacom. Retrieved May 17, 2011.
  8. ^ Vineyard, Jennifer (October 8, 2008). "Beyoncé Releases Two Tracks From I Am ... , Inspired By Jay-Z And Etta James". MTV News. Viacom. Retrieved April 15, 2011.
  9. ^ Tapper, Christina (October 8, 2008). "Beyoncé's Double Debut". People. Time Inc. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference us_radio was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference urban was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ "Available for Airplay". FMQB. Retrieved July 3, 2011.
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference au was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference nzz was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ "If I Were a Boy [Single]" (in German). Amazon.de. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mast was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference itunes4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference Nick was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ "Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It) – Dance Remixes". Amazon.co.uk. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
  20. ^ "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) [Single]". Amazon.co.uk. Archived from the original on April 1, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Single_Ladies_(Put_a_Ring_on_It)/Archive_1&oldid=1084081981"