Talk:One Sweet Day

Unified charts

To User:Hoary: because unified charts suck. --Winnermario 22:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This terse comment will surely benefit from a little explanation. It's a response to the following message that I posted on Winnermario's talk page:

Hello, I see that in this edit ("Fixed the charts"), you have split a single table into two tables, "U.S. Billboard" and "World", and have added a column, "Single". (You also seem to have added one row.) I'm puzzled by (i) your splitting of the table into "U.S. Billboard" and "World", where "World" has no obvious meaning, and (ii) your addition of a column that results in the same cell being inserted over and over again, with no exception. The former seems merely strange, the latter strange and also a waste of bytes. Could you please explain, either here or on the article's talk page? Thanks. -- Hoary 02:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To recap:

1. My reasons for unifying the tables are that doing so saves a few bytes and that a pair of tables seems to require a pair of titles that nobody has yet managed to get right. Winnermario's reasons for not doing so are that "unified charts suck". Perhaps Winnermario (or somebody else) could be more specific.
2. I see no reason to add a column whose every cell is the same. Winnermario has ignored this. Perhaps Winnermario (or somebody else) could provide some reasoning.

Hoary 01:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If "world" has no obvious meaning, you are not very intelligent. It mean, well, the world! Charts around the world! Oh my God, this is earth-shaking!!!

I added the title of the song to the charts because beforehand it was misleading. I was looking at it thinking, "What is this?" And then I realized it was referring to the song. You might like to look at some other music single articles that have the title in their tables: Cool, Behind These Hazel Eyes, We Belong Together. It will become an ongoing trend. Please leave it there for consistency.

--Winnermario 19:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Winnermario, it may be that I am not very intelligent; but perhaps because of this and perhaps because I'm an atheist, I don't see how "U.S. Singles Chart" is any more "world" or "around the world" than "Billboard Adult Contemporary" is. (Neither do I see how it's any more "international".) The titling problem goes away if the two tables are merged.

To say the tables are misleading without a reminder on every line of the name of the song is mindboggling (perhaps again because I'm not very intelligent). Do you really mean that you might have taken, or actually took, such a table stripped of this (to me) utterly superfluous column to refer to some other song, or to some congeries of other songs?

Yes, I have seen the other articles. Perhaps because of the lack of intelligence that you tentatively attribute to me, they all look pointlessly bloated. Is it desirable to be consistent with pointless bloat? I counterpropose a new trend: to cut the bloat. -- Hoary 22:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because you are unintelligent. --Winnermario 20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed a possibility. But don't worry about it: after all, my intelligence (limited though it may be) has sufficed to get and keep me a paying job. I suggest that my intelligence is also up to the task of understanding any rational argument (as opposed to mere bluster) for (i) the different "world" statuses of "U.S. Singles Chart" and "Billboard Adult Contemporary" and (ii) the need for columns whose every cell is identical. So let's hear this rational argument. -- Hoary 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as an outsider to this discussion I, too, fail to understand the term World in this context. I see three options: 1) Merging the tables, 2) Using the heading "Other charts" instead of "World", 3) Moving "U.S. Singles Chart" to the U.S. chart and replacing the heading "World" with something like "Non-U.S.".

I don't see any need for columns that repeat the same information throughout. Such information is usually best included in the table heading, if it is needed at all. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the real intelligent people are the Germans, who had enough sense to stop this wretched song from climbing any higher than number 25. -- eo 18:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Billboard’s Top Hits of the ‘90s chart is not the same thing as the decade-end chart

“One Sweet Day” was still the the number one song of the ‘90s at decade-end as published at the end of the decade. These updated charts Billboard periodically released include data up to the present if I’m not mistaken, and by definition, are not decade-end charts. MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure how many articles this affects, even outside the scope of Mariah’s discography, but I would propose creating another sub-section for “retrospective charts” if we deem these important. MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

France certification

One Sweet Day is certified Gold in France according to SNEP. (250,000 units) Source: https://snepmusique.com/les-certifications/?interprete=Mariah%20Carey&titre=One%20Sweet%20Day Justabadguy (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, especially in the "Live performances" section. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Airplay charts

There are three for the UK (Britain) alone. Music Week is the official one as it is the trade publication associated with the BPI and official charts. There should only be one listed. Peak #8.

There are 2. British Isles Airplay is UK and Ireland, which is a separate geographic area. In the United States you had rival companies Nielsen BDS and Mediabase. BDS was associated with Billboard, and Mediabase with other publications like Radio & Records. What's wrong with having 2 for the UK as well? Music & Media is no less legitimate than Music Week. In fact Music & Media was based in the UK. Heartfox (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

One Sweet Day

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. C679 05:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Uncited statements, especially in "Live performances". Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Doing... RedShellMomentum 01:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if this should be delisted over a few citation needed tags. I'm considering keeping this, on the condition that the sentences that are tagged with {{cn}} are either removed or have a reliable source added to them. What does everyone else think?

Courtesy ping @RedShellMomentum and @Z1720 since it's been 16 days since last comment. Gommeh 📖   🎮 19:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Gommeh: I have added additional citation needed tags to the article using this script. I would not recommend a "keep" until these have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

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.