Talk:I'll Be There (Jackson 5 song)

Untitled

I'm removing the merge tag because there was already consensus to keep the Mariah Carey song page separate from the Jackson 5 song. Mike H (Talking is hot) 00:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Flawed Literary Interpretation?

I wonder where the writer (one of the writers, i.e., one of the wikipedia contributers) of the I'll Be There Wikipedia entry got this interpretation: "The resulting song was a gentle ballad, in which the narrator asks his ex-lover to give their love another chance." It seems to me to be a wrong interpretation. Also, deeply rich literary aspects of this song and lyrics are being left aside...

-- Julio Siqueira (sorry for not loggin in; I am trying to retrieve my wikipedia logging info. juliocbsiqueira2012@gmail.com, former email was juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.71.154 (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Interpretation" for the meaning of the I'll be There song altered. The new interpretation is: The resulting song was a gentle ballad, in which the narrator asks his lover to make a very special vow ("a pact"), one capable of bringing - as he put it - "salvation back," summarized in the phrase "where there is love, I'll be there," in an allusion to a passage from Matthew 18:20, where it is said (by Jesus): "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." He promises that he'll always be there "to comfort you," and that even if she "should ever find someone new," he'll still be there for her if her new love treats her wrong. Julio Siqueira 2012 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Copied from Talk:I'll Be There (Mariah Carey song):

Considering that they're the exact same song, do the J5 and Mariah versions of "I'll Be There" really need seperate articles? Ususally when articles are written on songs that are recorded by more than one act, one article is used to discuss all versions of the song (see "Who's Lovin' You", "Hum Along and Dance", and "I Heard It Through the Grapevine"). --FuriousFreddy 14:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

No, they're not exactly the same song. There are notable differences and a merger would not look good. Usually a different article is used for covers like I Will Always Love You, I Will Always Love You (Whitney Houston song), Lady Marmalade and Lady Marmalade (2001 song), both versions of My Prerogative, etc. OmegaWikipedia 05:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've heard both, extensively, and they are the exact same song (not the same record). The differneces between the records themselves are relatively minor, although no difference in the recordings would be enough to warrant seperate articles of the same song (especially when, as apears to be the case, such a thing is only done for a small group of singers, namely Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Chrisitna Agulera, and Britney Spears. It would hardly make sense to write articles for every major version of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town", since, if we are to exemplify a neutral point of view, we would have ot do in order to warrant Mariah Carey having her own seperate article. You and anyone else working on pop-star singles articles are the only ones wriitng seperate articles on covers; previously, one article per song was more than enough (and should still be). Notice that all of the examples you gave have been labeled for merger as well. --FuriousFreddy 06:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged and that the singles are very similar. I'm interested in the history of the song more than I'm interested in an article about one particular version, but that's a matter of opinion, I guess. I also find it annoying that this is titled "Mariah Carey song". "Mariah Carey version" or "Mariah Carey single" would be better, but it's not her song. Rossrs 13:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've performed a "test" merge of the two pages at Talk:I'll Be There (Mariah Carey song)/temp, to see what the resulting article would look like if they were to be merged. Extraordinary Machine 14:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I took the test merge and did some revising and formatting, hopefully so that they read better combined. At the very least, if they are not combined, I have cut down a lot of extraneous information in the Mariah Carey article (both here and in the combined version), and the article should be moved to I'll Be There (Mariah Carey cover) or I'll Be There (Mariah Carey version). This should not be a rule, however; it should only be done in the cases of major (read: number one) hits that are notable in their own right (as it stands right now, there are only two such songs that I know of that apply: "Lady Marmalade" and "I Will Always Love You"). --FuriousFreddy 17:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Well, since a lot of excess in the I'll Be There (Mariah Carey song) had been trimmed by FuriousFreddy, and the main I'll Be There article was small enough to accommodate information on both the Jackson 5 and Carey versions, I've copied and pasted the material from Talk:I'll Be There (Mariah Carey song)/temp into this article, and have turned both that and the article on the Carey version into redirects to this article. Extraordinary Machine 23:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

OmegaWikipedia, in his edit summary here, asks "Why are we merging?" To answer the question: because there's more than enough room for the both of them. Extraordinary Machine 23:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There was already a vote to keep the two seperate OmegaWikipedia 23:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'll Be There (Mariah Carey song) attracted ten "keep" votes and eight "merge" votes, equalling no consensus. There are several song articles on Wikipedia that discuss more than one version, e.g. Radio Ga-Ga, I Heard It Through the Grapevine and Respect (song). Everything's in one place, it's all well under the 32kb limit, and no information has been lost. I don't see what the problem is. Extraordinary Machine 23:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Both tags on the article say keep instead of no consensus. In any case, they shouldnt be merged because there it looks very confusing and messy. OmegaWikipedia 23:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A ratio of ten to eight on a WP:AFD vote today would probably be considered "no consensus": remember, that debate was held months ago. I don't think the merged article is confusing, as it is clearly indicated via section headers where it is discussing the different versions. Does this mean that the articles I mentioned above should be split off as well? They seem no different to me than this one. Extraordinary Machine 23:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The merge follows the discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, and Extraordinary Machine improved two articles by performing it. I would suggest that the article is not improved by having two infoboxes, however. Jkelly 02:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

We should probably make some sort of templete for a combined infobox for other songs with more than one highly notable version, like the aforementioned I Heard It Through the Grapevine. We should also do one for standards and songs that aren't based in popular music recordings. BTW, I just did some rearranging to create an improved layout, and I found that this picture over here (--->). didn't seem to fit (probably becasue of its high similarity to the actual single cover). We should probably get a better picture (with both of the 1992 song's performers), and also one of the Jackson 5 performing this song somewhere(I'm sure they've done it on Ed Sullivan or a similar show). But without pictures, it's still fine. --FuriousFreddy 02:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Would this one do? (If the link doesn't take you straight there, just click on "Picture Gallery", then "Screen Captures", and then the "I'll Be There" thumb.) Coincidentially, a lot of the other music video screenshots for Mariah Carey singles seem very close up to her face, and don't tell us much about the video. Before more single infoboxes are created, though, I think we should start a discussion at the WikiProject Music and/or Song talk pages on which fields are completely necessary. For example, I started Template:Single infobox2 to accommodate all the fields present in the "custom", syntax-based infoboxes floating around (writers, video directors, certifications), but I'm beginning to think that I shouldn't have. The more information is presented in the infobox, the more unwieldy it becomes, and there's now a point where these custom infoboxes are far larger than the actual text of the article (e.g. She Will Be Loved).

Also, I've taken a close look at Template:Mariah Carey2. In addition to Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey recording), here are the articles about covers that Carey has done that I think should be merged someplace else: Without You (Mariah Carey song), Endless Love (1994 song), Joy to the World (Mariah Carey single), O Holy Night (Mariah Carey single), Open Arms (Mariah Carey song), Sweetheart (1998 song), I Still Believe (Mariah Carey song), Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now) (2000 song), Last Night a DJ Saved My Life (2001 song), Bringin' on the Heartbreak (or should at least have more information on the original song) and Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey single). Plus there are various "airplay" only singles, or ones which weren't even released at all (such as The One (Mariah Carey song) and Say Somethin'), that should probably be merged into the articles about the albums they came from. Extraordinary Machine 13:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as the single infobox goes, we should probably make one singgular designed version (for consistency), and redesign it entirely for at least two reasons: (1) Not all singles have album covers, b-sides, certifications, or music videos and (2) the custom ones can become very long, very easily. --FuriousFreddy 18:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why we should merge all of these Mariah Carey articles — especially "Without You". Its success was far more driven than that of its original artist(s), and proved to be a hit-single even in countries that did not accept the original track. The same situation is held with "I Still Believe", which lives up to the fact that Carey plays the role of her idol — Monroe. The need is irrelevant. --Hollow Wilerding 13:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If a song was more popular in a covered version than its original, then the article should reflect that. But one article should mention both. --FuriousFreddy 18:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There's no need to merge all those articles. OmegaWikipedia 13:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This particular consensus indicates that the two articles be kept separate. So I honestly don't see why this debate is continuing. Whatever the result was is what the result was, regardless if you are fond of it or not. --Hollow Wilerding 13:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

That particular debate attracted ten "keep" votes and eight "merge" votes, which would be considered "no consensus" today. Proposals to merge articles aren't supposed to be listed at WP:AFD anymore as it is believed that they clog up the page, so I can't take the discussion there. I've listed the dispute (as well as the one about the Diana Ross and Carey versions of "Do You Know Where You're Going To") and put it up for discussion at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Per Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, merging articles is a good idea when "There are two or more articles on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe" and, in the case of "Do You Know Where You're Going To", "Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town", and articles about "airplay only" releases, "If an article is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with an article on a broader topic". Information on the Jackson 5 and Mariah Carey versions of the song fits easily under the 32kb article size limit, the different sections on the two versions are clearly indicated, and I feel it's better to have the history of a song in one place anyway. I don't see what the problem is. Extraordinary Machine 14:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The last thing Wikipedia needs (which is what it seems to be getting stuffed with) is a glut of articles about each and every song (or version of a song) that comes out. There should be a requirement that anyone who decides seperate articles are required for different covers of a song be required to write an article on each and every major version of a song, otherwise they will all be merged. Then, perhaps, after they've written the twentieth article on "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town" and have had to look back over what they've done, the lack of reasoning behind the process will be made clear. --FuriousFreddy 16:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I just signed up for Wikipedia, and I can already see why User:Winnermario chose to go. As I've mentioned before, "ten votes for keep and eight votes for merge" is a consensus. Why? That's because more people chose to vote "keep". You mentioning that "today it would mean no consensus" makes no sense whatsoever, because today and yesterday (or "May" in this case) are not far apart at all. Having cover versions merged with original versions is unintelligent, while there is also an ongoing debate about charts, where if you ask me, is one of the most illogical arguments that's ever been displayed. Charts don't add anything to Wikipedia, except a POV-style. --Hollow Wilerding 17:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Winnermario had a problem with being civil. If people vote "keep", they have to provide better reasons other than "it's part of Mariah Carey's discography". You say "having cover versions merged with original versions is unintelligent" (that's a personal attack, by the way; I stopped myself from saying the same thing about making seperate articles--especially in the cases of songs with more than two important versions). As far as charts go, in my personal opinion, they should all be done away with; they turn articles into marketing reports. But most people seem to want them, so there needs to be a professional and well-laid-out way to present them. --FuriousFreddy 18:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, "ten votes for keep and eight votes for merge" is a consensus. Why? That's because more people chose to vote "keep". You have mentioned that before, but because you are new here I will demonstrate why that's not correct. "Consensus" is a (mostly) specific policy at Wikipedia, and according to that policy consensus is usually considered reached when between (depending on the type of discussion) two-thirds and three-quarters of a poll result are for one outcome. Ten votes out of eighteen is not a consensus, it's a plurality, and a very slim one -- Wikipedia is not a democracy. I hope that clears things up for you. --keepsleeping say what 20:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia needs to change its policies; "consensus" has a meaning, and that meaning is currently being abused. --Hollow Wilerding 02:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Include "Dangerous-The Short Films" Version

There's a piano version of "I'll Be There" by MJ and his kid self. I saw that it was a brief duet. Can we add this? Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I'll Be There (The Jackson 5 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://hosting1642755.az.pl/sp%20uk%20best%201992.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130731104027/http://www.voxxi.com/karlos-rose-shines-hanlon-alli-estare/ to http://www.voxxi.com/karlos-rose-shines-hanlon-alli-estare/

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) 20:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)