Talk:Forever (Mariah Carey song)

@Barbiekool: per MOS:NOFORCELINK, "do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." This is done by including "Publisher" in the table heading so that readers understand what the information in the parentheses means. The year is already given in the caption. Heartfox (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

including "publisher" in the heading is reduntant as most articles put the year there. this, to me, seems very confusing; i personally didn't initially notice that it could mean so. if this has been a more common practice i wouldn't have reverted it, but this is a very sudden change that most articles don't use Barbiekool (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok but how does it align with MOS:NOFORCELINK? How is someone supposed to know what ARIA and RIANZ mean? If they are in parentheses, "(ARIA)", and the table heading is in parentheses "(Year)", that is telling readers that ARIA is a year? —it makes no sense. Heartfox (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

well, if one is gonna look at the section of "charts", they should likely be familiar with terms such as ARIA; if the person does not, other companies, such as "dutch charts" and "radio and records" could easily lead to knowing that it is a publisher for record charts.

the parentheses for the year and publisher are most likely seperate, as to why any other music article has the year inside. it seems a lot more confusing for someone to put "publisher" in the heading as it's a very sudden move. Barbiekool (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added this to Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. Heartfox (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you! Barbiekool (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Belatedly responding to a request for a third opinion here. There appears to be a clear example at WP:Manual of Style/Record charts#Chart templates that should be followed. If, as suggested in the discussion above, the direction in the MoS is outdated then please consider getting consensus to change the MoS first rather than making this article the vanguard. The repetition of the years in the title and the header, as occurs in this version can be addressed by removing the year ranges from the titles. MOS:NOFORCELINK was cited in the discussion above, but it states: Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. These aren't sentences; they are columns of data and the fact that it's the publisher is pretty clear in context without explicitly stating. Again though, that seems an argument to have at the MoS page for Chart templates, not here. VQuakr (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

To me, this feels more like a pop/R&B song, with influence from doo-wop and early R&B, than being a pop/rock & roll song. I usually associate "rock & roll" with Chuck Berry, early Elvis, and Buddy Holly. "Earth Angel" by the Penguins has the same chord progression, but is listed as "doo-wop" and "R&B." GildedPalace (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:No original research. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 05:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The article is well-written and sourced, that's for sure. But I can't help but notice that, as featured articles go, this one is short: ~1300 words. There also doesn't seem to be that much in-depth coverage of the song itself. That's of course not prohibitive per se, but I think it very much affects the article in terms of its overall comprehensiveness:

• The composition section does not talk at all about why Carey wrote this song.
• The article gives one short sentence to what the song is actually about.
• The article gives a lot of technical details on composition, and some vague overall points on style, but I think overall, it's missing a real dissection of what the actual design choices behind the song were and how those melded into a cohesive whole. There's also no tying of the music to the lyrics.
• The reception section is very scattershot. None of the quotes clearly connect to above discussion of the composition, or to each other, so it just ends up being a collection of quotes that are – given the nature of music reviewing – either clear and surface-level or insightful and vague.

I understand if all that is just a limitation of the sourcing, but per WP:FACR, the article needs to be comprehensive and well-sourced. That means the article has to "neglect[] no major fact[] or detail[]". Would it be possible to add more on the missing points here? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)