Talk:Behind These Hazel Eyes

Massive edits to the article. If anything needs to be reverted, provide an explanation and reasons. DrippingInk 13:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to get into an edit war (not with you DrippinkInk), but Mel, I really think the song section neess to be restored. That is way too long for a lead section, which needs to summarize the main points about the song. The song info is a body onto itself, and needs to be restored. OmegaWikipedia 7 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)

As with the comment at Talk:Since U Been Gone, I'm afraid that I don't really follow most of that. The song can't "have its own section", though, because the whole article is about the song. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)

The edit summary removing the "copyedit" tag and replacing the unneeded section heading claimed that it had been discussed here; where? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Huh? The dispute over this article is the same we had over "Cool" and "Since U Been Gone" about the lead section. OmegaWikipedia 8 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

First, there was nothing about removing the "copyedit"; secondly, even if a "the song" section makes sense there (and I still think that it doesn't despite the large amount of material, much of it not strictly relevant to the article), it doesn't make sense here.

Sections aren't an essential part of an article; they're used to break it up, to avoid a long, undifferentiated mass of text, and to divide it into logical (and useful) bits. In this case the article os much too short to need sections. I've pointed you to what the Manual of Style says; did you not look at it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Oh my God. Do you enjoy causing all this drama or do you seriously really think it would be better for the article to be this way? Most of the Stefani and Clarkson articles have the first section labeled as "The Song". Please don't tell me you're serious. Maybe, thats what the manual says, but I would hope you could look at the article and related ones and use some logical thinking and not be so mechnical and stubborn. Why should this article be different? Dude, it's not that much shorter. In any case, I'm going to expand the article later on, then there can be no debate about this trivial matter. OmegaWikipedia 9 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)

Drama? The shoe is on the other foot. And yes, I look at this article and think that it looks silly with the extra section break, and fine the way it is. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 9 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

You know I personally don't like having "The song" as a header. If the article is going to talk about the writing credits, its influence, ecetera, then change it to what I did in Gwen Stefani's singles, namely "Theme and influence" or "Writing credits". "The song" makes no sense since the article is, well, about a song. 64.231.66.251 18:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And for heaven sake, would someone please add the chart positions of all the nations? The United States is nowhere near the most important country in the world - no country is the most important. Someone add them. DrippingInk 18:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm shutting up. I sort of had an overblow there for a moment. Greatest apologies. But if you wanted to make this article work without headers, you could always just peek at the way I have organized the Spice Girls singles. But then, these are new, fresh singles, with additional information as they have just been or recently released, whereas Wikipedia came online a year after the six-year hiatus the Spice Girls would take.

I'm making myself look awfully silly. Never mind the above. I've taken care of the chart positions. DrippingInk 18:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason in particular why we aren't saying that the ex-boyfriend refered to is David Hodges? 24.5.54.209 17:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to say so? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. They are both public figures and their relationship was public knowledge. For those with knowledge of the relationship, the little fact would give them greater insight into the song and music video. 24.5.54.209 07:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the facts can be sourced, then I can see no reason not to include it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back to "The Song" issue, these singles articles aren't really about a song per se, they are about singles, including videos, remixes, and chart positions. Thus having a first section called "The Song" isn't as redundant as it might seem. Wasted Time R 14:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like it if someone could figure this out. Just pick a header and go with it. DrippingInk 14:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that the distinction between "single" and "song" is rather hair-splitting, and not one that most people would make. The Wikipedia Manual of style warns against splitting an article unnecessarily into sections, and the use of unnecessary sections is something that more experienced editors often have to correct. In this case, it's difficult to see what advantage the use of a section is supposed to bestow upon the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did the song get retired from TRL, or did it drop off the countdown? These are quite different, and Mel reverted an edit which had changed it to the former (I will say that since the video was at #1 so long I find it far more likely that it was retired and didn't drop off). Everyking 10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]