This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sources
Artwork
- http://www.mtv.co.uk/little-mix/news/little-mixs-love-me-like-you-single-artwork-suggests-theyre-on-the-hunt-for-another-no1
- http://www.m-magazine.com/posts/little-mix-love-me-like-you-single-artwork-69767
- http://www.idolator.com/7608136/little-mix-teases-love-me-like-you-single-release-view-clue
Reviews
- http://www.musictimes.com/articles/49187/20150925/little-mix-new-single-love-arrives-ahead-weird.htm
- http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/music/news/stephen-fry-brands-little-mixs-love-me-like-you-hideous-toxic-34311401.html
- http://www.fuse.tv/2015/09/little-mix-love-me-like-you
- http://www.mtv.com/news/2282118/little-mix-love-me-like-you/
Composition
- http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=MN0156298
- http://www.mtv.co.uk/little-mix/news/little-mix-have-revealed-new-album-tracks-and-a-christmas-remix
Live performances
Music video
- http://www.capitalfm.com/artists/little-mix/news/love-me-like-you-new-song/#1yBRJQcR03Us7yYC.97
- http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/02/little-mixs-prom-night-isnt-all-its-cracked-up-to-be-in-the-brand-new-brilliant-music-video-5418104/
- http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/6715337/little-mix-love-me-like-you-video-prom
- http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/30/the-hot-dude-in-little-mixs-love-me-like-you-video-looks-rather-familiar-5413837/
- http://www.4music.com/news/news/update-little-mix-release-video-tease-love-me-you
Requested move 12 February 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. Given the the fact that the relevant style guideline is disputed, and unlikely to be resolved soon, we can defer to the consensus here that "Like" should be capitalized in this title. Cúchullain t/c 17:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Love Me like You → Love Me Like You – While the discussion on the central issue takes place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters, we should discuss the title of the song. Is "like" a preposition or not? If so, WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CT say lowercase it. Otherwise, uppercase it. Similar to Years Past Matter and People Like Us (film), there is a slight hint of double entendre. George Ho (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- But there is already a discussion taking place. — Calvin999 17:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support. The title is a double entendre but the MOS doesn't actually care whether it is or not. (See both discussions at People Like Us, where the MOS contingent ignored that point.) On the other hand, MOS:CT is simply wrong. It's currently being enforced as though it were superior in authority to WP:USECOMMONNAMES, WP:RELIABLESOURCES, and WP:READERSFIRST, which is patently false.
The original artists and their company capitalize the word; every independent source on this page either capitalizes the like or uses allcaps; every page with an allcaps title that has running text capitalizes the like there; and Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of second-guessing them. See also the fiasco hidden in the archives at Star Trek Into Darkness. — LlywelynII 04:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC) - It's irrelevant that sources capitalise it. They always capitalise every word in a song title regardless or whether it's correct or not. — Calvin999 11:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Except that's untrue. Some opt for allcaps or nocaps formatting to avoid worrying about it, but—just finding the first counterexample—M Magazine uses standard formatting for Liv and Maddie and Austin and Ally. I've been through all these links and none of them use lowercase "like". — LlywelynII 15:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Important note: This RM discussion has been hidden from view by the nominator, but not closed. Additional comments were added later. It is not clear whether there is an RM discussion happening here or not. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Reviving the discussion, BarrelProof, due to additional comments. George Ho (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose:
I think, in this context, "like" is a preposition.A typical lyric from the song is "'Cause I realized the truth, they can't love me like you". So I think "love me like you" means "love me the way that you love me". As a preposition with fewer than five letters, MOS:CT would say to use lowercase. Even if it's a conjunction rather than a preposition, MOS:CT says to use lowercase for short coordinating conjunctions, and generally defines "short" as having four letters or fewer, so it seems to recommend lowercase either way. This seems rather similar to prior instances of discussions for Talk:Do It like a Dude and Talk:Moves like Jagger. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is unambiguously a conjunction. In the lyrics, it has a single usage, it is a fragment of "[they can't] love me like you [love me]". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, maybe. But as I said, MOS:CT recommends lowercase for (short coordinating) conjunctions too. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Umm, BarrelProof, "like" is a subordinating conjunction, not coordinating conjunction. It's not one of FANBOYS, so it can be uppercased if it's not exactly a preposition but a double entendre. --George Ho (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, maybe. But as I said, MOS:CT recommends lowercase for (short coordinating) conjunctions too. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Given your prior involvement in several of these conversations, I'm sure you're already aware those two were not representative discussions. See instead those at "Smells Like Teen Spirit", "Just Like Heaven", Sounds Like Teen Spirit, People Like Us, "I Like It Like That", "On a Night Like This", "Walks Like Rihanna", Fly Like an Eagle, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (again), and People Like Us (again). Even if the MOS were correct about "like" (which it probably isn't), it and WP:TM have opt outs in the case of universal stylizations. That seems to be the case here, in the 44 citations we have so far. — LlywelynII 15:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- These various discussions have not all involved quite the same issues, and some of those have not had formal RM discussions or resulted from "no consensus" declarations or were only discussed briefly in relatively ancient Wikihistory (e.g. 2007). The two I listed were ones that did have reasonably recent RM discussions
with consensus outcomesand seemed very similar (although it appears that Talk:Do It like a Dude was a "no consensus" declaration that was coupled with your Walks Like Rihanna case and Nuttin' but Love, which later reached a consensus to follow MOS:CT in another RM). There are others that went the other way as well. Some candidates include Someone like Me, Someone like You (Adele song), Love You like a Love Song, Bridge over Troubled Water, A Winter amid the Ice, See, amid the Winter's Snow, and Four past Midnight. (I've unfortunately been paying more attention to looking for exceptions to the MOS:CT & MOS:TM guidelines than to cases that support the guidelines, so I can't really speak to relative frequencies.) If the idea is to change the general guideline, that's probably something that should be done in the discussion taking place elsewhere, as previously noted. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- These various discussions have not all involved quite the same issues, and some of those have not had formal RM discussions or resulted from "no consensus" declarations or were only discussed briefly in relatively ancient Wikihistory (e.g. 2007). The two I listed were ones that did have reasonably recent RM discussions
- I think it is unambiguously a conjunction. In the lyrics, it has a single usage, it is a fragment of "[they can't] love me like you [love me]". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 07:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose while there is an ongoing discussion. FWIW Commonname has no relevance to style and a consistent house style is more important. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- It likely won't make a difference to you, but WP:TM and the MOS both have caveats that we should follow stylizations universally adopted by the secondary sources. See also the extensive Star Trek Into Darkness archives. At least at the moment, with the 44 citations currently given, capitalized "Like" here is just such a case. — LlywelynII 15:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:LlywelynII, you are right, but I find it rather silly to be arguing about visuals in an aural tradition. You will also note my absence at the discussion, but I do appreciate you bringing the discussion to my attention on my talkpage. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Capitalization of the titles of works of art is precisely the same scope as this discussion. As realized by the dozens (hundreds?) of editors at that 130k+ word dispute, in the end, COMMON & RS > MOS, even if it did advocate a lower case here. — LlywelynII 15:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:LlywelynII, you are right, but I find it rather silly to be arguing about visuals in an aural tradition. You will also note my absence at the discussion, but I do appreciate you bringing the discussion to my attention on my talkpage. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- It likely won't make a difference to you, but WP:TM and the MOS both have caveats that we should follow stylizations universally adopted by the secondary sources. See also the extensive Star Trek Into Darkness archives. At least at the moment, with the 44 citations currently given, capitalized "Like" here is just such a case. — LlywelynII 15:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Llywelyn. No reason why Wikipedia should ignore reliable sources on the matter and the ongoing discussion shows a clear preference for following sources and uppercasing Like. Calidum ¤ 15:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Don't like the fact that this RM was started during the MOS discussion, but most reliable sources use the proposed new capitalization. sst✈(conjugate) 16:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support. However, this move should not take place until after the MOS discussion is finalized. ONR (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Naval Rooftops (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Love Me like You/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 00:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright I will be picking up the review, both to help out my fellow Wiki Cup participants and to earn points for the GA cup as well.
GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.
- Copyright violations Tool
- The tool calls out a few things but they are quoted in the article or track/album names etc. I have not found any issues.
- Disambiguation links
- Checks out
- External links
- Internal server error on the following links
- 28
- 29
Showing up fine for me. There are instructions in the ref as to how to access the specific chart. — Calvin999 08:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Well Written
- "Singles Chart, and has" - does not need the comma
- "Little Mix have performed", should be "has" as the band is singular
- For a solo singer I would have used 'has', but not for a group. — Calvin999 08:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- "band members eyeline" is that "eyeliner" or "eye line"?
- "an instrumental of "Love Me" should that be "instrumental version"?
- "respectively..[" has a doube period.
- "The video takes place at a school dance, where professor in the hall, the same man who appeared in their previous single's video "Black Magic", which was shot in conjunction with this one in a one-week period in April 2015, tells every one that it is the last dance.". the interjection seems pointless and makes the sentence very hard to read.
- "where professor" should be "where a professor"
- "are waiting for their date arrive" should "for their dates to arrive", they are expecting several dates right? and "to arrive"
- "each of them to go after" reword to each of them to go to the dance after"
- "He mets Leigh-Anne" should be "meets"
- "to her, and again asks" the phrase would indicate that he asked Leigh-Anne before.
- " He helps her up, and" does not need a comma
- Typo - "twelth" should be "twelfth"
- "Little Mix" sung" not sure why there is a " there, and should be "sang" not sung
- Done all — Calvin999 08:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sources/verifiable
- The referencecs seem to be a mix of actual referencecs and footnotes - like #4 and #6. I would like to see a seperate footnote section instead of mixing it in.
- This doesn't need to be done. I've never done it nor been told to before. — Calvin999 08:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reference 7 does not have the article date added.
- Same for #14
- Ditto 16
- And 25
- Added for all. — Calvin999 08:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- What is the reliable source status of the following websites
- Digital Spy
- Idolator
- Musicnotes.com
- Press Play Ok
- chart-track.co.uk
- ultratop.be
- ifpicr.cz
- lescharts.com
- Australian-charts.com
- Hollywoodlife.com
- Seriously?? — Calvin999 08:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: Not sure how to take that comment? so anyway, criteria 2b, all sources.must be reliable sources according to the GA criteria. I asked because i don't know if the music project find these sources to.be WP:Reliable Sources, each topic have differnet sources they may or may not consider reliable. If you do not know I will research them, but i figure you probaly knew the answer to 75% or more? MPJ-US 22:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Have you ever reviewed a music article before? Of course these are reliable. You'll find these in pretty much any music related article. I'm just really surprised you are questioning the reliability of these sources when they are used by music topic editors all the time. — Calvin999 09:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Being used a lot is not the same as being reliable, If you read WP:Reliable Sources you'll notice that there is no consideration given to "being used a lot". I am really surprised at your attitude over the fact that as part of a review to see if the article is a Good Article I am checking against one of the criteria and ask questions? I am trying to do a proper review here and not just provide a rubber stamp approval and all I get is attitude and a rather condesending attitude?? MPJ-US 11:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- But they are reliable, that is why they are used a lot. These are staple sources in music topics. Asking someone to list why every source is reliable for every review is just a waste of time. I've never had to state why every source is reliable. You'll even find them in Featured Content. If you want to check that they are reliable, then that's your job as the reviewer, not mine as the nominator. I'm equally surprised that you don't know that these are reliable sources. — Calvin999 11:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- So since the nominator was less than helpful on this I am doing my own research, I am looking at WP:CHARTS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Resources to see if the various sources are considered Reliable, either by the songs project or from what I can see for websites not listed anywhere for songs or charts.
- Digital Spy
- Idolator - listed as a "blog" on the wikipage, website give the impression of being news, but no mention of an editorial process.
- Musicnotes.com - Sells sheet music, fairly innocent content
- Press Play Ok -
- chart-track.co.uk - - based on what I read in "about us" and "methodology"
- ultratop.be
- ifpicr.cz - "International Federation of the Phonographic Industry" in the Check Republic. Looking at the guidelines that is probably acceptable
- lescharts.com
- Australian-charts.com
- You do realize that this is just the Australian version of ultratop.be and lescharts.com right? — Calvin999 12:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- You do realize that I am not actually interested in the music articles in general and it's not really on me to prove that your Good Article candidate fullfills the requirements?? How would I possibly know that since it's not listed on the charts overview? MPJ-US 00:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you'd have clicked on them you'd have seen they are all linked together. — Calvin999 09:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- You do realize that I am not actually interested in the music articles in general and it's not really on me to prove that your Good Article candidate fullfills the requirements?? How would I possibly know that since it's not listed on the charts overview? MPJ-US 00:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not listed for Australia.
- You do realize that this is just the Australian version of ultratop.be and lescharts.com right? — Calvin999 12:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hollywoodlife.com - owned and operated by pmc.com that also runs stuff like Variety Magazine
Broad in coverage
- As broad as it can get for a song I suppose, not sure what else could be added
Netural
- It does present at least one view that's not complimentary of the song, although the majority is positive.
Stable
- There is some back and forth in the past, but nothing that jumps out at me as problematic.
Illustrated / Images
- The cover is "Non-free" but there are no free options for that, licensing looks correct to me.
- I am not sure if I think the Ronette and the Supremes pictures are appropriate since the comparison is on singing not visual comparisons. On the fence with those images.
- You could say that for any comparative image. If a subject is mentioned, then a picture of the subject is allowed. — Calvin999 08:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
General
- So the Chart (2015) does not sort at all, but the Certifications chart with 1 entry does. Seems like it should be the other way around.
- That's a pre-coded template, nothing I can do about that. — Calvin999 08:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: - That's what I got so far on this, I am putting the article on hold to allow for updates to be made in the next 7 days. Let me know when you are ready to have me follow up on review comments etc. MPJ-US 04:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done, GA. For future reference you cannot expect the luxury of a GA reviewer that's intimately familiar with your topic and I think the spirit of cooperation should fill your heart when someone else goes out of their way to voluntarily help you with your article. MPJ-US 00:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't expect that luxury at all and never have. I don't need to be lectured on voluntarily helping people with their reviews, I've done 244 myself. — Calvin999 09:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Love Me Like You. 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/20160917112745/https://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to https://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705030259/http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparada/index.php?hitp=R to http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparada/index.php?hitp=R
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070110021817/http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparadask/index.php?hitp=R to http://www.ifpicr.cz/hitparadask/index.php?hitp=R
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) 19:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 30 December 2020
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 13:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Love Me Like You → Love Me like You – Per MOS:TITLECAPS, "like" should be in lowercase. The "potential exceptions" do not apply because, in this case, "like" is a preposition. The exception only applies to non-prepositions (Apply our five-letter rule (above) for prepositions except when a significant majority of current, reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently capitalize, in the title of a specific work, a word that is frequently not a preposition, as in "Like" and "Past"
). The title (with context) can be expanded to "They can't love me as you do" (original lyric: "They can't love me like you"). "Like" is therefore a preposition and should be lowercase. An example of a correctly named article is Love Me like You Do, which is the same type of title as this one ("like" is used in the same way). There needs to be consistency within Wikipedia, so it’s either this article or that article gets renamed. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 03:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Strange isn't it, the 11-charting song from 2015 has a giant article, the 12-charting song from 2005 has a redirect. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as unsupported by the predominance of usage in the references used for the article. MOS:TITLECAPS must never supersede WP:VERIFIABILITY. Also the five-letter rule used in it is arbitrarily set by Wikipedia editors - not a universal rule. See recent discussion at Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home#Requested move 29 August 2020. -- Netoholic @ 09:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Netoholic: that's a problem then, because it effectively makes MOS:TITLECAPS redundant. Richard3120 (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- As previously (Talk:Love Me Like You#Requested move 12 February 2016), I don't have a committed position in the MOS versus The World battles, but in this title the word "like" is NOT a preposition, it is a conjunction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is absolutely correct - "like" as a preposition means "similar to", but as a conjunction it means "in the manner of" or "in the way of", which is clearly the meaning here. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)