Talk:Maneater (Nelly Furtado song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maneater (Nelly Furtado song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Maneater (Nelly Furtado song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 3, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Pop music Mid‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronic music Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Music Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page Move[edit]

this should be moved, and a disambiguation page added, cf. Hall &oates maneater e.g.

Not unless those pages exist. Do they? - ^Рэд _хот 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't now but Im currently working on a project of U.S. number one hits, so I am moving this page accordingly and creating a disambig. -- eo 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote this?[edit]

There are vast similarities between this article and the article on Promiscouus. For instance, both have a "on Furtado's request" part about the video, and both have something about what she wanted to portay in the video.

Are these being written by Furtado's agency or something?

They both follow a particular structure and grammar, almost like a particular template was used. Not that there is anything against the rules about her agency participating in Wikipedia, but its a question of whether or not eventually even the corporate world will come to the open-source/free-information movement (thereby completing the movements acension to mainstream).

PLEASE keep personal commentary out of an encyclopedia article. The phrase to the effect of ..."[Furtado] can't dance for her life..." is NOT appropriate.

The extra stuff[edit]

I have removed the following from the infobox, seeing as it is useless:
 Øřêōş 22:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Release?[edit]

Anybody know when the song is gonna be released in the US???

The Canadian release date was yesterday; the U.S. release date should be fast-approaching. Very soon, I'd assume. 64.231.115.150 00:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean exactly?[edit]

"Furtado and Timbaland also channel the 1982 Hall & Oates number one hit (U.S.) of the same name without the use of sampling."

They're awfully clever, but could this be said a little less cryptically? I have no idea what the author is trying to explain. And I won't attempt to rewrite it without a source. Did Furtado or Timbaland make this claim? Rossrs 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a {{fact}} tag after it; hopefully someone who knows more about the relationship between the two can elaborate. Extraordinary Machine 16:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cover[edit]

Why was the cover changed, there ARE two different covers so why use just one when there are actually two? --218.160.64.66 15:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states that fair use media (such as single covers) should be used "as little as possible ... Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." Extraordinary Machine 22:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "extra" to "additional"?[edit]

I've assumed good faith with Velten (talk · contribs) with more effort than she deserves, but some of her recent edits [1] [2] [3] border on the completely ridiculous. Velten, note that the Celine Dion article is at Celine Dion for a reason - if you have a problem with this, you discuss it on the talk page or post a requested move, but what you don't do is change links matching the article's current title so that they instead match what you feel is the correct way to write her name (as well as piping them so they are hidden when listed at Special:Whatlinkshere/Celine_Dion). You've been told this (as well as about, more generally, working collaboratively and with others rather than against them) before, and yet time and time again you seem impervious to good, useful, productive advice from other editors. Singles have music videos, not songs; "extra" is no worse than "additional", and what's more, it's shorter. Rearranging lists of items so that they read alphabetically is nothing short of nonsensical; Wikipedia is not a place where you can indulge silly obsessions like this. Your deliberately disruptive behaviour is completely unacceptable, so if you start inexplicably making piddling stylistic changes to this article, or any article you know is being watched by me (or anyone else with whom you've had disagreements in the past or have currently), I'm just going to roll you back, no matter how big of a song-and-dance you make afterwards. Please, just save yourself the embarassment of landing yourself in even more trouble. Extraordinary Machine 22:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertizing again? I should start watching the series, I'm sure it's good.

"Good, useful, productive advice" — making some stylistic rearrangements is considered intolerable to you, apparently; "Additional" is less purple than "extra" (remember, this is an encyclopedia and a not a book); alphabetical lists are generally favourable: they're in publications galore and... must I even bother? Okay: one. I think enough's been said, unless you want me to direct you here. The saga's over: my stylistic edits are not for you to consider "disruptive", especially since you jump only when it's on one of your watched pages. Velten 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, ladies and gentlement, we have Velten, subject of an arbitration case because of her disruptive behaviour and obsessive editing of articles, making another ill-considered attempt to seek revenge for my blocking her for causing more disruption. Apart from edit-warring, she's (inadvertently or deliberately; I'm really not sure which at this point) worsening the article, including replacing perfectly good words such as "inside" with misplaced formalities such as "within". I hoped you'd have realised now that you're in no position to be second-guessing other people's prose; see We Belong Together FAC nominations and Cool (song) talk page before you vehemently deny this, as you do any wrongdoing on your part. You already look like enough of a fool when you try to satisfy your obsession with annoying me and anyone else who thwarts your attempts to have your way - there's really no need to bring down the quality of articles in the process. Undoubtedly you will respond to this message so that you can believe you have "won" until I leave another reply; unfortunately for you, I won't do that, because your harrying messages speak for themselves without me having to comment on them and it's a waste of my time discussing issues with you when the real reason you came to this article is abundantly clear. Now run along back to articles on subjects in which you actually have a genuine interest (outside annoying editors who are watching them), because your stalker behaviour is wearing thin. Extraordinary Machine 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I'll make sure this is publicized well. "Inside" and "within" mean the exact same thing; "misplaced formalities"? Did you think that one up on your own? Do you see me jumping when you edit my material? As far as I'm concerned, this made perfect sense, but I was satisfied with the minor rewrite. You, however, jump at the change of a word. Anyway, I'm done here. Don't expect a response. Velten 23:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian pop airplay[edit]

10 hits? The U.S. airplay chart is very R&B, rhythmic and hip hop-based, but it's called the Hot 100 Airplay. I don't see the "U.S. R&B Airplay Chart" anywhere there. What makes you think the Canadian airplay chart has to have "pop" in there to verify that it's genre-specific? What other excuses do you have to not permit its inclusion? For someone who has this page watch-listed, I don't see a response anywhere. Velten 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you claim to have this page watch-listed, I'm going to assume you've been ignoring this discussion. I'm restoring the airplay chart as a result. Velten 16:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up until now I've avoided replying on this page to Velten. A user who insists on following me and other users to articles and performing piddling, often nonsensical edits and starting disputes for the sole intention of irritating those editors is a disturbing user indeed. Plus the fact that he denies any wrongdoing whatsoever, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But you had to keep picking away, didn't you Velten? I'll keep this brief: you wrote "Restore pop airplay chart; you can go take it up with Jam! or Nielsen BDS if you don't think it's genre-specific." [4] - So I did. According to http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Charts/BDS_1.html, the airplay chart lists "[t]he top played radio tracks in Canada compiled from a national sample of radio stations collected, compiled, and provided by Nielsen BDS." But hang on ... there's no mention of pop or any other genre anywhere on the page. And if all radio stations in the U.S. except R&B/rhythmic/hip hop ones played nothing but, say, country music for a week, the top few slots on the Hot 100 Airplay would be occupied by country songs, not R&B/rhythmic/hip hop, because the Hot 100 Airplay isn't genre-specific. And neither is the Canada Airplay Hits Chart, the top five slots of which are currently occupied by rock songs. All of this is irrelevant, though, when we consider the real reason you're making such a huge song-and-dance about this. I shouldn't have to warn you about the consequences of being deliberately and persistently disruptive on this or any other page. Extraordinary Machine 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is true that the current top five positions are occupied by rock songs... I guess I'll have to do some investigation. Keep publicizing, and as I said before, I will edit a music-related page whether it's on your watchlist or not. Velten 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who's always saying "one word is better than four", so don't game yourself. Velten 00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MuchMusic Countdown[edit]

Maneater did not peak at #2, it went to #1 on the MuchMusic Countdown(MuchMusic series) on December 8, 2006.

Position

Recent edits and good article nomination[edit]

Though the recent edits by Igordebraga (talk · contribs) have done much to improve the article, I believe that they have introduced several problems. Statements such as "The lyrics describe a maneater, a seductive woman who seduces men in order to take control of their lives" are original research if not accompanied by citations. Citations have been removed or replaced without the content the citations supported being deleted or edited accordingly, and some are misrepresenting the content of the source — for example, http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1566507/20070807/timberlake_justin.jhtml does not mention that the MTV Video Music Award went to Fergie, only that Furtado was nominated in the same category. Also, MTV Central's Total Request Live is not the same as the U.S. version, which is what the popfusion/ATRL.net archives cover, and some of the citations are not formatted correctly. Again, I don't want to belittle Igordebraga's contributions, but in its current state, the article does not meet the good article criteria. Extraordinary Machine 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

Upon its review on October 23, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. The article is actually very strong and well-referenced. But all those tags need to be addressed first. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.--Esprit15d 13:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of the above issues and have re-nominated this article to see if there is anything else that needs to be improved. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review (again)[edit]

Well, since there are no longer any cleanup tags, I can give this article a more thorough review. While the article is well-written, there are two issues that need fixing before I promote the article.

1) There are some formatting problems with the references. The rule for footnotes is: period - quote - footnote - space - new sentence. Some of the footnotes in the body are not formatted in this way and need fixing. Also, footnotes should be at the end of the sentence if possible. If a sentence has two footnotes, one can be put in the middle, but in sentences with just one, it should be at the end.

2) The lead needs expansion. The lead should 'mirror' the entire article, that is, be sort of like a summarized version of the body. At the moment, all that is mentioned is the single's performance and a brief description of who wrote it and its influences. However, the body of the article also discusses the single's critical reception and the music video. These also need to be mentioned in the lead. However, I would not make the lead longer than three paragraphs, so perhaps try to integrate the critical reception into the first lead paragraph already present, and write a new one for the music video.

Once these issues are resolved, I will promote the article. Zeus1234 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you please expand on the the rule for footnotes, I didn't quite understand it. I will try to address these issues as soon as possible. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example: He said "hello."^[1] Next sentence begins.^[2] The previous one is for sentences without quotes. This is correct referencing. All references at the end of the sentence should be like this.Zeus1234 14:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'm working on it now. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Done: I think that i've covered all of the issues. Would you like to check? Thanks! --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care with the position of citations in relation to the text. Moving citations to the end of sentences can often mislead readers about what part of the sentence the citation is supporting. To use one example from this article:

The single's music video was directed by Anthony Mandler^[3] and filmed primarily on Firestone Boulevard in South Gate, California.

was changed to

The single's music video was directed by Anthony Mandler and filmed primarily on Firestone Boulevard in South Gate, California.^[3]

Notice that the citation does not support the second half of the sentence, but its position at the end of the sentence suggests that it does.

Also, punctuation marks such as periods should be placed inside quotation marks only if the punctuation mark is part of the original quote. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ f
^ f
^ ^a ^b "Nelly Furtado's 'Maneater' Video Almost Ate Her Alive". MTV News. 2006-09-20. Retrieved 2007-10-16.

missing arms in video[edit]

I just wanted to mention that there's a blip in the music video: at 4:37 to 4:38 (Furtado (or her double) is dancing on a table in the club) Nelly is missing both arms. I didn't want to insert this and then be the reason why the article didn't get promoted to a good article, but I do think that should be mentioned.91.15.230.125 20:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Wayne remix[edit]

The album article mentions a Lil Wayne remix released on Furtado's website, but this article does not mention it at all, not even in passing. Should at least a short sentence be included? Fixer23 (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maneater (Nelly Furtado song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 01:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015043933/http://www.nellyfurtado.com/lyrics/default.aspx/pid/2194/in/2 to http://www.nellyfurtado.com/lyrics/default.aspx/pid/2194/in/2

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) 23:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maneater (Nelly Furtado song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 19:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ^ f

[2] ^ f

[MTV-Sep2006-3] "Nelly Furtado's 'Maneater' Video Almost Ate Her Alive". MTV News. 2006-09-20. Retrieved 2007-10-16.

[1]

[2]

[3]