Talk:Spirit (Leona Lewis album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spirit (Leona Lewis album) 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

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Leona Lewis (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Leona Lewis, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Leona LewisWikipedia:WikiProject Leona LewisTemplate:WikiProject Leona LewisLeona Lewis

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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music Mid‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A Moment like This

This says that all songs on the album are new, bar one. We know "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" is a cover version so perhaps "A Moment like This" won't be on the album after all. Only time will tell. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 14:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footprints in the Sand

Why did someone edit the credits to Footprints in the sand out?

The credits are true!

Do you have a source for them? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 08:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, check this site:

Just search for Leona Lewis under performers here: There are also the credits for Take a bow.

http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?mode=search

Thank you so much for that, I have added the extra information. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Covers

Why on earth did you edit the information about the Avril cover and Darin cover out? It is true! I heard the snippets and can 100 % say that. Accept these songs are covers. Coast2coast2 17:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was unsourced original research. ^anemone|_projectors 18:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, even though the sources don't say who wrote the songs, I'll trust you and leave the information in. ^anemone|_projectors 19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can really trust me on that. I listened to the snippets and I know the original songs. So I can say for 100% it are the same songs.

The problem is I can't give you a source because the snippets aren't official yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coast2coast2 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on critical reviews

Why is there an emphasis on the critical reviews of her album, surely this is biased??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.175.146 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the tracks section, or the critical reception section, or both? The critical reception is meant to be about the reviews, and is pretty balanced. The tracks section could do with improvement. ^anemone|_projectors 22:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, this section is not balanced, with negative reviews given immediate emphasis and more space than is reasonable. The album garnered 'generally favorable reviews' according to MetaCritic, a primary source for calculating music reviews. Therefore the emphasis should be the other way around, with deeply negative remarks kept to a minimum. I'll try to fix this by adding a generally favourable review and removing a couple of negative ones. ~ smb 23:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Album Sales

Leona's official website states her album has gone triple platinum http://www.leonalewismusic.co.uk/index.php/news/album_and_single_success/yet wikipedia says 2xplatinum , surely it should say 3xplatinum? and platinum is 300,000 so it should be sales of 900,000 copies, correct me if i'm wrong but surely information on this website is incorrect.

http://www.bpi.co.uk/ only lists an award for "A Moment like This" when searcing for "lewis leona". We should wait until that site is updated really. ^anemone│_projectors 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why do you keep changing the certification to 3x platinum? seriously, if it says 1,600,000 sales that should be 5x, not 3x which is 900,000 so looking at the sales of eachweek it is WAY over that. even if there is no source surely you should just say 900,000 then, I hate wikipedia everyone changes it to silly lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.123.124 (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no source to say it has been certified 5x platinum. It has to be awarded by the BPI, and when it has, they will list it on their website. A record isn't automatically awarded a certification because it has sold so many copies. Only "A Moment like This" is listed as having received a certification, which leads me to believe that Leona's official website assumed that sales=certifications. It does not. That is original research and will always be removed until something is listed on bpi.co.uk. We have a source for the number of sales so we're not going to say it's only sold 900,000 copies, but we can't say it's 5x platinum until it is officially AWARDED by the BPI. ^anemone│_projectors 14:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)ut[reply]

ok but why dont we certify it before they do, it only takes some common sence not a specific award, platinum sales is 300,000 and we know for a fact it has sold 1,600,000 plus so there we are.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.123.124 (talk)

Because all information on Wikipedia must be verified by a reliable source. The only source we have says 3x platinum (although it is a primary source and probably not a reliable one). ^anemone│_projectors 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA release

Is it gonna have a different US release title? http://www.metacritic.com/music/upcomingreleases.shtml [see the 18th of March entry]

I suggest that it's a mistake, because Spirit is listed on that day but as an album by DeVotchKa. ^anemone│_projectors 02:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Whatever It Takes" has a new mix on the US album. Why isn't this acknowledged on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.54.73 (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too long

This page is ridiculously long for an article about an album. Sections like the CD catalogue numbers and personnel are completely unnecessary. Riksweeney (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Personnel section. ~ smb 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the personnel section. Why remove any sections at. Why not cut section to just infomation thats is needed (Sexty2 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have just restored the tag. This article is longer than Let It Be and Revolver combined. And neither one of those is anything close to a stub. This article needs to be seriously trimmed down. Some of it can be moved to the artist's page, most of it should simply go away. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut out some of the infomation from the article. It is now shorter (Sexty2 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The page is now a decent length. ~ smb 14:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, should be left alone now and that "This page may be too long" should be removed I think. Adi39 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can make it shorter if we place the references in a separate frame (one with a scroll bar), but I'm not sure how to accomplish that. ~ smb 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

(I'm moving this discussion from my talk page for clarity sake – Mdsummermsw)

There are citations for the certifications e.g. Gold in Germany which is over 100,000 sales. That's why the sales were there so I don't see why you've removed them. Adi39 (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, it's a bit if-y keeping the cite for the certification as many (Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Italy, US) are cited to to her promotional site. Others are just bad sources (Japan's source is a site seemingly violating China Dailys copyright; United World is sourced to aCharts, a spinoff of a blog). Some are wrong (Swiss Platin is only 20,000 since 2007; not 30,000). Some (Poland, European) are simply uncited. In any case, there is no clear cite for the sales figure.

In general, this article is way out of hand. In addition to the length concerns already noted, there are 27 national charts listed. WP:CHARTS says it should be no more than ten.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive Me

Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song) is currently a protected redirect and several other drafts have been deleted or userfied per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song). Protection will expire on October 26 and I'd lift it earlier only if some reliable sources come up. See also User talk:Tikiwont#Forgive me.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive Me – THE NEXT SINGLE!

It's confirmed on her official website, as well as a re-release of Spirit. The video has been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.1.175.126 (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't meet the notability requirements for a song.Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the admins dum here?

Why they keep deleting Forgive Me when the whole world knows its the next single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.65.230 (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kettle. Black. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday

Who produced this song?--79.204.66.232 (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personell and recording locations

I've added these sections to the page, but they probably don't include the information for "Run", "Forgive Me" and "Misses Glass" so would someone be able to check those for me? Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best Kept Secret

Why doesn't that album have its own page? It's real you know. Marexl (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It used to have its own article but it was nominated for deletion and deleted due to no notability. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with dead external links Needle-in-a-Haystack Answers

For anyone looking to fix/remove the dead external links the references that are marked as dead are numbers 23, 79, 122, and 131. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever It Takes (Leona Lewis song)

It's been over 30 days since this merge proposal, and the consensus here is to not merge. The opposes are policy-based, and the arguments therein are stronger than those that favor merging. Consensus here is that per the song charting, along with the source information provided by User:Calvin999 (listed as AARON), the article is qualified for being a standalone article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As I said on that article's GA review, I propose that Whatever It Takes (Leona Lewis song) is merged here (perhaps with some of the content going into the tour article). While the song is technically notable, as it charted, it certainly doesn't pass the GNG, and there is little to be said about it that is not more usefully said about the whole album. Not every subject which is notable needs to have its own article. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I believe it is on the borderline and does meet GNG. I haven't created articles for "Yesterday" and "Here I Am" for example, even though they charted, because there is less information than this article, especially as they have never been performed live. Several of Aguilera's Bionic song articles are the same length as this article and they have always existed. — AARON • ^TALK 16:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? It passes the GNG if and only if this exists. J Milburn (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this is a non-single, it received several reviews from critics from The Sun, Digital Spy, The New York Times, the Daily Star and The Guardian about the song generally as well as composition. As well as a critical source for her tour. Plus it charted, but that is under discussion, and rightly so. — AARON • ^TALK 13:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It charted, therefore notable enough for its own page. You can't pass the N criteria if you don't pass the GNG, as the GNG is what N means. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The general notability guideline is different from just generally "notable"; this subject is notable because it charted, not because it passes the GNG. Not every notable subject needs to have its own article- I'm asking what benefit there is to this subject having its own article, rather than having the scant information included elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you ask "what benefit there is to this subject having its own article" I ask you: What benefit this 111,000 Kbs article to have more Kbs? There is no real reason to merge it here, specially if we consider we have less notable songs with their own article. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the above comments. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As time goes by, I become more and more convinced that our practice of having separate articles for singles is a problem. Singles should either be covered in the article about their parent album or in a joint article detailing the history of the song. Individual articles about singles tend to overlap with articles about their parent album and with the articles about other singles from the same album. Keeping the articles separate just encourages redundancy and excessive attention to unimportant detailing of release dates and innumerable track listings.—Kww(talk) 02:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Aaron. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.