Talk:Apologize (OneRepublic song)

Separare article

No, don't create a separate article on the remix. It is essentially the same song as the original, Wikipedia guidelines on song articles keep remixes and cover songs in the same article. RaNdOm26 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about a song. The song is called "Apologize," by One Republic. Like many songs, it exists in several versions. No, each version doesn't get its own page. Consider the case of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. It is a single piece of music, written by Ludwig v. Beethoven. It has been performed, recorded, re-recorded, remixed, sampled, and altered hundreds and thousands of times. Some of those versions were popular, others less so...but they are all Ludwig v. Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Each performance doesn't get a separate page, no matter how popular, and the performers don't get to claim 'co-authorship' of the piece. Just so in this case. Is that clear now?

Yes, but why is the original version noted as charting around the world at the top of the article, when it was clearly the remix that charted.--XCheese360 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because in the first place, that isn't "clear" at all. As noted, many of the charts do not distinguish between plays of the remix and plays of the original. In the second place, the song exists as a single textual entity, outside of any particular version. Even though William Blake's poetry was largely ignored until it was rediscovered and reprinted by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, we speak of each poem as a single textual object, by Blake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it was clearly the remix that got the song it's attention and charted. Although I'm hardly denying it still is a song by OneRepublic, there is still a clear distinction between the two. 24.65.136.162 (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You can keep claiming that. It will continue to be untrue. Note that the song was linked in the EU charts, for instance, to the best performance by a "debut" act. I hardly think the description fits Timbaland. Further, as noted, most charts do not distinguish between requests/plays of the original and the remix...there is no way to distinguish them in this article, therefore. Finally, it is Wikipedia policy to keep all versions of a single song on a single page (see, for example, the much-covered "I Will Always Love You," which lists Parton and Houston's versions, though they charted entirely separately). 138.23.246.0 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A note on Authorship

It should not be necessary to redefine for some people that the "author" of a song is not its producer, remixer, or publicist. It is the person who composed the music. Arguably, the performer of the music may also share billing, and it has become standard practice, in Wikipedia as elsewhere, to credit the artist who initially performed a song as one of its creators. Timbaland fulfills NONE of the qualifications for authorship of this song, and the repeated foregrounding of his remixing "efforts" smack alarmingly of free advertising. The song "Apologize," the subject of this article, pre-exists all of Tmibaland's involvement with it. It was composed, performed, produced, and engineered more than a year prior to his having even heard of the band One Republic. There can be no possible rationale for including his name in this article as anything other than a minor note that he has contributed to its popularity. Anyone with a bass and treble control on their stereos can "remix" a song. Likewise, anyone with a $10 casio keyboard can record a drumbeat and layer it over an existing track. Neither of these make the person some sort of co-author, who should be credited with the track. Artists almost universally rely upon advertisers and music publishers to circulate and promote their work, In NO case does this make the advertiser or publisher some sort of co-creator of the tune. I am aware that one of the currently popular versions of this song bears Timbaland's name above that of the actual composers. Just so, Konrad Kujau claimed the book he authored had actually been written by Hitler. when the hoax was discovered, the encyclopedias - which Wikipedia dares to try emulate - did not continue listing Hitler as their author. The advertised 'author' of a work is not the essential concern of a supposedly fact-driven record. The ACTUAL author is, and the ACTUAL author of this song is One Republic, not Timbaland, no matter whose name appears on the label. The ONLY rationale for even the minor inclusion of Timbaland is his celebrity. One hopes - probably in vain - that Wikipedia and its editors can overcome the adolescent fascination with that quality long enough to record the facts, rather than the hype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"it has become standard practice, in Wikipedia as elsewhere, to credit the artist who initially performed a song as one of its creators." This is true, for the original song, but NOT the remix, which is the version that has become popular. The purpose of WIkipedia is not to promote the original artist of the song for its remix. It is widely documented that the artist of the remix is credited as Timbaland feat. OneRepublic. Trying to alter and misinterpret the artist credit the remix violates original research policy. It does not matter at all whether the remixer contributed little to the final remix. The single released worldwide was the remix, and it's wrong to mislead the actual facts of the artist credit. "The ACTUAL author is, and the ACTUAL author of this song is One Republic, not Timbaland, no matter whose name appears on the label." This fact for the original song is correct, this fact in regards to the remix version, which is released as the single, is not correct. Wikipedia is supposed to use information taken from the work from reliable sources. The reference to the Hitler book authorship hoax is irrelevant, this song is no hoax. If you can't verify from reliable sources that the artist credit is simply "OneRepublic" instead of "Timbaland feat. OneRepublic" (which the latter has already been used widely everywhere), then the infobox and lead sentence must be changed to reflect this. It is not okay to publish your own thoughts when other sources do not agree with it. RaNdOm26 (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is not to "promote" anybody. It is (theoretically, and poorly in practice) to record facts. The facts of authorship remain unchanged, no matter who popularizes a piece. Stokaowski does not get creditted as the 'author' of Beethoven's Fifth symphony, no matter how many times he records it. Edgar Allen Poe's tales were virtually dismissed in America before Baudelaire discovered them, but Baudelaire is not listed as their co-author. There are already dozens of remixes of One Republic's song available on Youtube - does each one get listed as a co-author of the song? The authorship is easily verified at One Republic's site, and even in the liner notes for the Timbaland remix. Timbaland's PR department may wish mightily that it were otherwise, but the fact remains that the song was composed, performed, produced, and mixed over a year prior to Timbaland's ever having heard of it. Timbaland, in this case, serves as little more than an advertiser of their work...and advertisers are not authors.

All I can say is that my view on this is completely the opposite to yours, as Timbaland is the author of the remix. The remix's author can't be OneRepublic, as they didn't produce it, so Timbaland is the author, and the whole article should reflect this. "There are already dozens of remixes of One Republic's song available on Youtube - does each one get listed as a co-author of the song?" - the answer to this is YES. RaNdOm26 (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A producer is not an author. And, in fact, One Republic DID produce the song, over a year before Timbaland ever heard of them. All Timbaland did was remix and re-release the song. You may be suffering under a misunderstanding of what the term "produce" means. And now you think every single remixer of the song should get credit as a co-author? You've just lost all credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the confusion here. Why are people so adamant that Timbaland should not be included in the article? Wikipedia reports and records facts. This article concerns the song "Apologize". Originally by OneRepublic, later remixed by Timbaland. Essentially these are two versions of the same song; i.e. the original and the remix. They do not require separate articles. However, they both require coverage in the article. The extent of coverage will be determined by the information available. As the Timbaland version of the song is currently popular, it is likely that much of the information will regard this. At present, the article is misleading. It needs to be clarified as to which version the chart details etc refer to. If the original has not been released, this should be made clear. Stop arguing. Stop acting like you WP:OWN the article and grow up. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to IP user 71.9.8.150: Excuse me, but I think you misinterpret my point, as I was referring to the remix of the song which OneRupublic did not produce. You were referring to the original song which the band did produce. And, don't say that I have lost my credibility with regards to my claim that the remixer should be the co-author, as I think your reasoning about authorship for the remixer is wrong. As Timbaland was the creator of the music used in the remix, he should be credited as the author. If the author of the remix was simply "OneRepublic", it would mean that OneRepublic had created and came up with the new music for the remix themselves, which, of course, they didn't. So Timbaland should have the credit for making the music elements. RaNdOm26 (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, this is in response to an earlier post: "Anyone with a bass and treble control on their stereos can "remix" a song. Likewise, anyone with a $10 casio keyboard can record a drumbeat and layer it over an existing track. Neither of these make the person some sort of co-author, who should be credited with the track." Anyone can make up a remix from any type of instrument, whether it is expensive or cheap. There is an art to remixing a song, that's why many people do it. The most successful remixes were not based on what instruments they use, but the people who utilise them to come up with the remix. These people can help an original song become popular. This has happened with "Apologize"; without the remix by Timbaland, this song would not have been as successful as it is now. It would be ridiculous not to acknowledge Timbaland as the credit for the remix, because OneRepublic did not make the music. RaNdOm26 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to the IP postings. Check out the Ryan Tedder article. It seems that he and Timbaland have been friends/colleagues/collaborators-call it what you will, for some time (circa 2002). So the statement "One Republic DID produce the song, over a year before Timbaland ever heard of them." is obviously wrong. This seems to be a case of I like OneRepublic, but then Timbaland came along and stole the limelight, so I'm going to delete anything to do with Timbaland from the article. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether anyone 'likes' Timbaland or not. The issue is what constitutes authorship of a piece of work. This has been a problem for textual editors for a long time, and volumes of work have been devoted to what constitutes an authoritative text. I have never, however, even heard suggested the idea that a remixer or recompositor or printmaker somehow could be construed as the author of a piece. Using Random2's logic, this article would have to include, as a listed "author," every single human being who has ever listened to the song and, say, turned up the bass a bit on their stereo. Neither wikipedia nor anyone else can determine some sort of objective measure of how MUCH tinkering would constitute authorship - Random2's suggestion that Timbaland's tinkering is a special case seems predicated solely on that individual's celebrity, as noted above. There is certainly room here to note Timbaland's promotion of the song, which nobody has ever denied. But that makes him an advertiser, NOT an author, and the article should reflect that. The Beatles' producer, advertiser, and mixing engineers do not get credited as the "authors" of their songs, though those individuals certainly had something to do with the band's popularity. How is this any different, other than the fact that Timbaland is a celebrity in his own right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.246.16 (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: Random2 claims "It would be ridiculous not to acknowledge Timbaland as the credit for the remix, because OneRepublic did not make the music." That is simply factually untrue. They did make the music. All Timbaland did was rearrange it. Timbaland plays no instrument on any version of this track, nor does he technically sing a note. ALL of his 'contributions' are sampled from existing sources, and those sources are the authors. I am not certain he even knows how to read music, much less write it. He can be cited, and should be, as a popularizer of the song. Not an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.246.16 (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No song description

There should be a summary or a descriptive meaning for the song. This is just random info about the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryattack (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not the place of Wikipedia to interpret (despite the fact that thousands of editors of millions of entries do so anyway). I have included the band's notes on the song's 'meaning' from their MySpace page, as that's as close to an official word you'll get on the subject. Beware of the fallacy of authorial intention, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who said that it wasn't the place of wikipedia to interpret songs? Do tell, or stop making things up to make yourself sound Smart Dennis-from-accounts (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is against WIkipedia policy to do "original research." Articles are also suposed to represent unbiassed, factual information. An interpretation of a song violates both policies. Do you require references to the appropriate pages stating the policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's very uninteresting. And no, don't waste your valuable time finding me some petty links. Best Wishes. Dennis-from-accounts 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

False Information

"The music video for "Apologize" features the original song, which is slated to appear on OneRepublic's upcoming album."

this isn't true and needs to be removed, the OFFICIAL music video for the song Apologize features the Timbaland version of the song, check out http://www.interscope.com/artist/player/default.aspx?mid=817&aid=575&bhcp=1 Merlin5793 05:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is this really by?

The article starts with "'Apologize' is a song performed by Timbaland featuring One Republic..." Is this accurate? The song was produced about a year ago -- whether Timbaland had a hand in it at the time, I don't know -- but it was certainly performed by OneRepublic. Yes, it will be a Timbaland song on his album 'Shock Value', and the video is produced by Timbaland, but I think the song should still be primarily attributed to OneRepublic. I'm proposing the article start with "'Apologize' is a song performed by OneRepublic..." There is enough information throughout the rest of the article that explains Timbaland's role and version. 130.94.250.76 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be completely re-done. It's referencing the Timbaland remix of the song as opposed to the original version which he had nothing to do with. Since the remix version is so popular, I believe a separate page should be created for it. Wikifried 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Timbaland's PR people are editting this page to give him credit for the song which he doesn't merit. There's a reason Timbaland is being sued for plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What evidence do you have you this you fucktard? - Best Wishes

Dennis-from-accounts (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

1.) Please refrain from personal attacks. They are against Wikipedia policy. 2.) The plagiarism suit against Timbaland is accessible from his main page here on Wikipedia, and is further chronicled here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2007_Timbaland_plagiarism_controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.246.24 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Could BatterBean, or anyone else for that matter, justify keeping Timbaland's picture instead of OneRepublic's on the article? I thought the creator of the song would have more importance than the remixer who vocalizes in the background (and just because one uploaded the image him/herself doesn't make it more important either.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snidervx (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about my personal attack above. BatterBean is a legend and you aren't Snidervx, everyone knows that :]

Dennis-from-accounts 04:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The truth is, Timbaland is the reason why this song is so successful, as he makes it more sexy.

Dennis-from-accounts 04:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Making something popular doesn't make you an author. It makes you an advertiser. In addition, your "apology," above, is simply another personal attack. Please refrain from them in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I wish to apologize again for my second personal attack above, I think that it's too late to apologize. Nevertheless, TIMBALAND MADE THIS SONG HOT. The version without Timbaland sounds like my dog when she's trying to extract dry faeces from her anus. -Best Wishes Dennis-from-accounts 08:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Shit, I almost forgot, I said above BatterBean was a legend, not my friend, and therefore I wasn't saying he was popular, maybe that hot girl that distracted you in english all those years ago is to blame for your weak and somewhat bemusing english skills? You may need a dictionary to find out what bemuse means, as it's quite a hard word to grasp. -Best Wishes Dennis-from-accounts 08:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Apologize.jpg

Image:Apologize.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Video

I often see a music clip where some film scenes where included. dunno which film but it seams to be german one (with Til Schweiger and another german actor). --Modgamers 18:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So i foud out, the song seams to be the OST from the german film "Kein Ohr Hasen". Maybe include this. The clip with the film scenes can be seen here: http://wwws.warnerbros.de/keinohrhasen/mvideo.html --Modgamers 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of MTV Central's VJs said that Germans have their own version of the video. Also the other german actor is Nora Tschirner --89.212.160.13 10:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Chart Listing

The chart listing on the Billboards say that the REMIX version is the one that topped the chart, therefore, the statistics for the original song are wrong. It wasn't the original song that made it to number 2, it was the REMIX, not the song that OneRepublic made themselves. Yellowstone County Girl (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the remix which Timbaland was credited for was the one that topped the charts, not the original version. RaNdOm26 (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

type error

"The record producer Timbaland has since released a remixed version of the song on hus album Shock Value"

it says "hus", this is supposed to be "his".

cant correct the page, so someone else will have to. --193.216.224.94 (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Divide articles?

It's very hard trying to get this article off the ground when you have to constantly keep referring back to the stupid original by onerepublic. I'll be honest, I don't get a shit about Wikipedia's policies on originals and remixes having to be in the same article. It would be much more easier for the common reader if they were divided; literally, the popular verison and the unpopular verison. I'd be very happy to make an article just about the remix, and since I'm on holiday now, I'll put my blood, sweat and tears into making it featured. Dennis-from-accounts 10:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's easier to explain within the text which song you are referring to. I don't understand why different versions of the same song have to be divided. RaNdOm26 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is addressed above under the heading 'remix version'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The remix is essentially the same song, just reworked. Cover versions don't get a separate article to the original, so neither do remixes. There's not much to say anyway, why have two articles of a few lines when you can combine all the information into one place.Nouse4aname (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that this is your position (and it's one consistent with Wikipedia policy) your earlier edits which attempt to distinguish Timbaland's remix as though it were a separate tune seem contraindicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on, it's really not that complicated. The remix and originals are two different versions of the same song. The article should include information about both, but equally should clearly distinguish which version is being referred to at any one point. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to divide the articles, in the info box state this: Arist: OneRepublic/Timbaland. Why dont u just say that! And plus, it was the remix that came a big sucsess! No the other version. BatterBean 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, the charts being referenced do not differentiate between the version of the single featuring Timbaland and that which does not. Both are being tabulated as plays of the song. Therefore, singling out the Timbaland version as the one solely responsible for the chart success is factually insupportable. In the second place, in no other single's page, anywhere on Wikipedia, including several which featured Timbaland much more prominently than does Apologize, do I see a case in which the mixer is given (a) a full byline or (b) a link to their chronology, as though they were a co-author. Wikipedia's own definitions of authorship, under the article of the same name, do not support any reading in which a mixer is somehow a co-author of a piece. There is no rationale for it. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Aaaahhhhh. I do not understand why you do not comprehend this. The original version of the song is not the one that is currently released. It is not the one that has a physical copy. It is not the one that is in the charts. Regardless of how little work Timbaland contibuted, it is his remixed version of the song that is released and that is charting. In addition, stop removing the Timbaland chronology. I have explained that this should be here. You claim you are following precedent, but offer no evidence. In fact, there are several articles which have separate chronologies for cover versions of songs: The Saints Are Coming, Next to You etc. You are following no precedent. Check out WP:OWN Nouse4aname (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not revert the article again, I have requested an admin take a look. The page was protected for this same reason previously, and was restored to the version with the Timbaland chronology and which made clear which song was being referred to. If you continue to revert this page without proper discussion (i.e. providing evidence, not opinion) then you will be in line for a block. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not vandalism simply because you disagree with it. The text as it stands is consistent with all other examples I can find on Wikipedia. For example, see the article on Nelly Furtado's "Do It." Timbaland's contribution to that single was considered significant enough that it has formed the basis of a legal case for plagiarism against him...yet he is not listed in the notes as a co-performer, nor is he mentioned in the article as though he were. Nor is his chronology listed with the track's article. Nor can I find a single other case in which the mixer of a track is given such prominence over the actual composer or performer. Again, I am more than happy to see a counterexample. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But there is only one version of that song. In this case there are two different versions of the same song. They must be indetifiable for the purpose of the article, you cannot treat them as one. He is actually credited as one of the main performers of the remix version of Apologize, whether you like it or not. Why do you not understand this? Nouse4aname (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He is not credited as one of the performers of the song. He is, according to the liner notes for the single release, "presenting" OneRepublic. Not "performing" their work. He stands, therefore, as an advertiser, just as General Electric "presented" Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. And while there may be two versions of the song, both are getting airplay, and the charts do not differentiate between them -- they treat the song (quite correctly, under the Greg/Tanselle school of textual criticism) as a single text. So does every single Wikipedia page which refers to remixes or re-issues of a single, coherant work or text. I am, again, happy to look at even a single case, Timbaland or not, in which a remixer is credited as an author or performer on a single. I have yet to find one. In every case, the mixer or engineer is credited as just that...and no further. In the interests of civility, I'll give you a day or two to come up with a counteexample consistent with Wikipedia's policies on this. But don't call something "vandalism" just because you disagree with it, particularly when I'm poviding examples within the project and you are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That is besides the point, he has contributed to the work. The single is released under his name. His chronology rightly deserves to be there. Your example of GE presenting Rudolph is not comparable, they simply pay them money to tag their name on, ie, advertising GE, not rudolph. In this instance OneRepublic have (very cleverly) used Timbalands popularity to advertise their own work. Timbaland contributed to the song. End of story. I have presented examples, such as The Saints Are Coming, which is not only a cover but also a collaboration between U2 and Green Day, in much the same way as this could be viewed as a cover of OneRepublic, and a collaboration between OneRepublic and Timbaland. One the article for "The Saints Are Coming" the infobox contains a chronology for The Skids (original version), Green Day and U2 (the two collaborators on the cover). As for your point about both versions being treated as one, that is simply not true in the UK, where only the one version (i.e. Timbaland) is elligible for the charts. As for your accusation that I am providing no examples, that is "simply untrue". I have provided a very relevant example previously, and here again. You have give one example (Nelly Furtado's "Do It) the relevance of which I successfully refuted (there is only one version of the song, and he produced it). I am not so hot on producers remixers etc, but maybe this is a special case. Whether you like it or not, Timbaland contributed to this song. He gets a chronology. I do not see why you have such a problem with this. OneRepublic obviously don't, they have got free promotion out of it. In addition, I am not calling it vandalism because I disagree, I am calling it vandalism becuase you are disrupting a page with edits that remove information. Oh, and you are not providing examples in the project, you are saying you have seen some, but don't give any names, please give me a list, and I will be happy to refute them too.Nouse4aname (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As for other examples, check out every other release from Shock Value (Timbaland album). I really don't understand why you cannot just allow the chronology to be. You seem to be adamant to disrupt this place in subtle ways, and maybe it is about time you grew up. If you insist on removing the chronology from this article, please also remove "Apologize" from Timbaland's article and infobox.Nouse4aname (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, i think Timbaland should stil be included in the article, due to that the "remix" was the big hit, which is by him. Also the remix (which was the big hit) was also from the album Shock Value so which states that he also made the song too. So in the article we should state that the song was made both artist. Say in the infobox that they both made it. Just diffrent versions. So in conclusion, just write in the infobox the two artsist, OneRepublic and Timbaland or OneRepublic/Timbaland and keep the singles thingy by both artist. BatterBean 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The song "Apologize" is a single textual entity, per every definition of bibliographic criticism I can think of, including those referenced here on Wikipedia. It is a reading consistent with historically established practice (we speak of Shakespeare's "King Lear" as a popular play, for instance, not his "King Lears," even though there are variants of the text). It is also consistent with the music charts. The very fact that some of the charts (Billboard, for instance) do provide some distinction between the two versions of the song, and that others do not, suggests that they are treating them interchangeably. But even if they were not, I do not see any parallel between a cover of a song and this case. Timbaland is not covering this song. Nor is he collaborating on it. He does not sing nor play an instrument in any version of the song Apologize. He is not remastering, nor has he re-recorded any part of the song. He does not even claim, in the liner notes or elsewhere, to be doing so...he is simply "presenting" the song to the public, as a popularizer, not as a performer or author. Consistently with all other Wikipedia singles, the engineer or mixer is NEVER credited as the author, nor is the engineer/mixer's chronology, if any, EVER referenced in the article. Examples, just from Timbaland's own ouvre, include: Pony (Ginuwine song), Big Pimpin' (which he even wrote part of), Rollout (My Business)...even SexyBack, on which he actually is featured, does not warrant a chronology. The song Diamond Dogs is listed as by David Bowie, and there is a reference to Beck's cover, but though Timbaland produced that cover, Timbaland's chronology is not listed. I can find NO OTHER CASE in which the engineer/mixer's take on a song warrants a chronology link. Again, I would be happy to see even a single example. But you have not yet produced one. To do so here is, therefore, inconsistent with established practice and with verifiable fact (i.e., the fact that Timbaland does not perform nor write this track). It is not vandalism to remove inaccurate information. Truth is not something you "compromise" on. And it is not "disruptive" to disagree about how to edit a page. It *is* disruptive to tell other editors "it is about time you grew up," to call them "moron," and threaten them, all of which you've managed within the past few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I really do not care anymore. Do what you will. Just do it consistently. If you remove Timbaland's chronology, then please fix the preceding and following singles to reflect the fact that this is the case. There is obviously no reasoning with you. It is a fair compromise, yet you still insist you must be right. Acting in the same way as a child, and it is for that reason I suggest you grow up. Good day. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, but the fact remains: truth does not come from compromise. If one person claims Pi is equal to '2' and the other insists it is 3.14159..., they don't "compromise" on 2.57. I repeat that I am more than happy to look at counterexamples, if you have any to offer. And I ask again that you please moderate your rhetoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a ridiculous example, as one can easily be proven to be correct. What exactly is your problem with having the Timbaland chronology? His contribution was to remix a finished piece. It was this remixed version that was initially released as a single, regardless of whether the two are now interchangable. His contribution is the difference between the original and the new version. This clearly makes him an author, and his credit is in the title, i.e. "Timbaland presents". Take an instrumental piece of music, no lyrics, so no author. For simplicity, the original is a guitar and a bass. Then along comes a drummer and adds a drum track to the music. Does this mean the drummer has not contributed? Does this mean they do not get credit? No. This is what Timbaland did. There was the original version. Timbaland came along and added to it. Admittedly, not in a conventional way, but by adding new elements including samples and drum loops. This is his work. OneRepublic did not do it. The very fact that it is Timbaland presents OneRepublic should be enough to warrant his inclusion. I really do not see what the problem is in having his chronology included. And please do not start throwing "authorship" around. His authorship is in sound, not the lyrics.

May I also suggest that you sign you posts. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For someone who claimed he was 'done' with this issue, it's surprising how much effort you've put into subsequent argument...much less the multiple people you've begged to come support your side of the affair. Kind of makes one realize where Wikipedia gets its reputation for cliquishness and bullying. Ah well, the point remains: you are arguing here not with me, but with the Oxford English Dictionary. Authorship is not so flexible a term as you seem to wish it were. I will quote from the version noted here in the relevant Wikipedia article: the author is "the person who originates or gives existence to anything" and as "one who sets forth written statements." In both etymological and legal terms, therefore, Ryan Tedder is the author of "Apologize," and Timbaland is not. Timbaland "originates" not one note of music in this song. Moreover, there is vast, already referenced historical precedent here: a mixer or engineer is not the author of a musical composition. Attempting to redefine the term would constitute 'original research,' at best, and simple obfuscation or weaseling at worst. I understand you "do not see what the problem is" with including Timbaland's chronology. The problem is that establishing proper credit for authorship is one of the defining principles of art, whether for economic, aesthetic, or interpretive purposes. Confusing what authorship means, as a few people in modern media seem intent on, dilutes those principles. It's one of those rare instances where the philosophical insistence on a truism runs up against a practical application. In simpler terms, if you don;t happen to think it's a major issue, why are you getting so very emotional and insulting about it, to the point that you're desperately dragooning others into the debate?

I am in fact done. I am annoyed by your inability to understand how things work around here. I have requested a few regular contributors to the article come along and give their view. It is called forming a consensus. Currently the consensus is that the Timbaland chronology stays. That is how things work on wikipedia. It is not desperation. It is not emotional or insulting. It is simply the process that is used. Feel free to invite other users yourself. The more debate the better. As it stands the consensus speaks, and altering the article against the consensus will be considered vandalism.Nouse4aname (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I do understand how things work around here...but consensus is not reached by going out and cherry-picking which editors you'd like to chime in on the issue. The article on the topic actually specifically states that: "...hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue...is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works." Forum-shopping, which you've also engaged in by attempting to close the article to my edits, is also discouraged. And, for that matter, so is ignoring precedent. So no, the consensus has not "spoken," in any fashion, and even if it had, further edits contrary to that consensus would not be considered vandalism. I quote again from the policy page: "No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined.". And one more: "Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble." For someone who likes to throw around policy references, you don't seem to have read them very carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually you misunderstand. Your first quote relates to when an editor attempts to change an already established consensus by bringing the topic up again. As far as I can see a consensus was already reached (i.e. to include the Timbaland chronology), and you attempted to change this by persistently removing it. I have not engaged in forum-shopping. This relates to where the debate is held, i.e., holding the debate on another location of wikipedia, one which you are unaware of, and thus reaching a consensus without you. I have begun, and continued the debate on the most reasonable place possible, the talk page of the article in dispute. Currently, the consensus is to keep the Timbaland chronology, myself and two other users agree on this. I have invited some regular contributors to the debate, and you are very welcome to do the same. This is commonplace, and there is nothing wrong with doing so. You are right, I cannot declare that the consensus is fixed. I can however declare that at present the consensus is to keep the chronology there. Actually, edits that blatantly revert content that has recently been agreed upon could indeed be considered vandalism, especially if you have no new valid arguements to do so. To be fair and accurate however, the consensus has technically not yet been reached, as everyone must agree to abide by the outcome. Unfortubately, you appear to be unable to agree on anything other than your own opinion, despite it having many flaws and prejudices. I am not running roughshod over any minority. I have attempted compromise, continued discussion, and yet you still will not agree on anything. Furthermore, I perfectly understand the policy references I "throw around". It seems you do not. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1.) No concensus had, or has, been reached. I repeat the quote, since you seem to have not read it: "No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." You, again, do not get to declare what the concensus is, particularly when the "concensus," in this case, consists solely of yourself and two other users you specifically enjoined to come to this board in support of you. That's not consensus. That's cliquishness and (attempted but failed) bullying, specifically contrary to Wikipedia policy, no matter how widespread you think the cpractice is. 2.) You have most certainly engaged in forum shopping, by encouraging certain users, off this message board, to chime in here in support of your position ([1], [2]), and moreover, in your attempt to remove the entire board from access to my IP address ([3], [4]), despite being told by multiple admins that my edits were not, in fact, vandalism at all([5],[6]). 3.) It must have escaped your attention that I very carefully have NOT editted the page during this ongoing discussion, as it was my understanding that it would be grossly rude to do so while there was still debate over what material to include. I also notice that hasn't stopped you at all. 4.) If you think you understand Wikipedia's policies so well, you might try explaining how edits like these ([7],[8]) fit into them. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. Those two editors were invited on the basis that they regularly contribute to the article. As our debate was going nowhere, I thought it a good idea to get some more opinions. I am not declaring the consensus, I am making you aware of the current position. I attempted to protect the page as in the previous instance it was protected in response to your continued edits and reversions. I accept their decisions, although I do find them rather contradictory. The idea of the block was to stop your reversions, not the discussion. An easy way to get around the block would be to simply create an account...I have not edited the areas of the page that are in debate at all. I made one edit to attempt to reach compromise, which you threw back in my face. In addition, please explain what is so wrong with those edits. One of which does not even concern this page. If you are talking about my edit summary, well I am sorry, I am not PC. If some idiot wants to disrupt wikipedia by adding content such as that, then they will be treated as such. I make no apologies. I am not going to say "welcome, your edit was reverted, but please keep trying".Nouse4aname (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, I had a point-by-point reply detailing the ways in which you're violating Wikipedia's policies, but I realized I oughtn't bother. If references to your own statements and those of the admins have been unable to convince you, I doubt further explication will help. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

":::::::::::: Inviting editors who had already declared their position on the article, then chuckling about it together on their talk pages? Hardly a gesture towards honest discourse. And so there is no "current position" - there's disagreement. What's wrong with the edits is, as mentioned, the assumption that you've already 'won' - note that you've changed the page to accord with your position, not the "compromise" one you earlier suggested (and which, BTW, I never touched). As for your edit summary, it's not that you're "not PC." It's that you're in gross violation of Wikipedia policy. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)"

...I'll respond to it anyway and I'll explain again. I invited a few regular contributors to the article to join the debate, as between us we were obviously going nowhere. The messages I posted are friendly messages, simply informing other users of the debate, in no way worded to influence the outcome. You were very welcome to do the same. And please don't suggest that you are offended by my expressing my opinion. It is called freedom of speech. There is no assumption I have won. It is not about me vs you, but about the consensus, which as you can see is at work. My proposed compromise has already been reverted, [9] not by me as you assert, but by another IP user (this IP is located in California. I am not). Since changing to the compromise edit, I too have not altered the page. And please, don't keep quoting policy. In a perfect world no one would vandalise wikipedia, and I would be nice to everyone. However, this is reality, and if some kids want to vandalise it, then I will show them the respect they deserve, ie, by describing their actions as idiotic or such. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote. However, the greater the number of editors contacted, the more often this behavior is engaged in, and the greater the resulting disruption, the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings and/or sanctions....Votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion....The term "forum shopping", or "asking the other parent", refers to repeatedly asking for outside opinions until you get an opinion you like....This also includes bringing up the same issue on a number of forums in succession (e.g. the village pump, admin board, deletion discussions, etc.) because the debate on the first forum did not yield the result you wanted. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting boring now. I will obviously not convince you that I am well within the rules. I asked that the page to be semi protected, as this was the previous response to your persistent edits. I then noticed that the first admin I approach had a "due to personal issues will be away" notice, so I approached another. Both responded the same way. I challenged the first, as he was the original to protect the page, however he has not responded, and I have not persisted. I then invited a few other editors chosen by looking at the edit history of the page and spotting those who appear frequently. One was previously involved in the debate, another has not responded. Three "friendly messages" is hardly mass messaging. My asking for outside opinions actually reflects a desire to resolve this sooner rather than later. How about a little good faith, and you stop accusing me of things I have not done. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people these days, can't you just leave it as it is saying Timbaland and OneRepublic as artist. You other editors have go an make things more difficult. BatterBean 10:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Truth is that way sometimes. Just because it's more "difficult" to acknowledge accuracy doesn't mean one should simply skip it and bend the facts to fit current tastes.

There is nothing inaccurate with including the Timbaland chronology... And will you please remember to sign your posts. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I have edited the page to a fair compromise. I have changed the wording so that it now only refers to "the song", whereas the chronology stays, just as it does with every other release from Shock Value. If you delete the chronology, then you effectively remove information that should in fact be there, and you must also go to the previous and next singles to edit their chronologies accordingly. There is no need to do this, as this is in fact a Timbaland single. It is on his album, he has the right to release it under his name. I trust that this will see an end to the issue, and that when you calm down maybe you will read this.Nouse4aname (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Truth does not come from compromise - that is one of the big lies of Wikipedia. This is not a Timbaland single. It is a single by OneRepublic which Timbaland is "present[ing]" to the public. He is shilling for them, not claiming authorship. I do not think I am in need of calming, as I am not the one threatening people, telling them to "grow up," etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my compromise [10] has been partially reverted by another IP user. This is called forming a consensus. [11] Nouse4aname (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples

• Walk This Way
• East Coast West Coast Killas
• Sing for the Moment
• Stan (song)
• The Way I Are
• Anonymous (song)
• Give It to Me (Timbaland song)
• Wait a Minute (Pussycat Dolls song)
• Promiscuous (song)
• Ching Ching

Just some examples where artists who feature in a song get their chronology in the article. Stop using the word "author". You don't have to write someting to get credit. It is Timbaland's work that you hear with the sampling etc, no matter how little effort you believe this to be, he is a contributor, which is the important point to remember. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your own examples suggest you are incorrect. In every single one of them Tim Mosely/Timbaland is listed as a writer, or there are multiple performers. Neither is true in the case of this song, which was not written by Timbaland. In no case that I can find - nor, apparently, that you can find - is the remixer credited as the author, or given a 'chronology' link. You can continue searching, if you like, but I suspect you will search for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So examples is warranted. Mark Ronson is a remixer which isn't a writer for each of them. Oh My God (Kaiser Chiefs song), Valerie (The Zutons song) and Stop Me If You Think You've Heard This One Before are songs that he has remixed and re-recorded, with no credit to singing, writing, etc, and is no different to this song. RaNdOm26 (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. These are certainly closer, but they are still not parallel to the case of 'Apologize.' According to the links here, Ronson re-recorded the tracks for "Oh My God," composed new material and lyrics for "Stop Me," and supervised the recording of Winehouse' vocals on "Valerie." All of these constitute much more significant contributions to the songs than Timbaland's minor additions to "Apologize." More to the point, of course, we'd still have to stand Timbaland's effots up next to the literally thousands and thousands of cases in which an engineer or mixer has greatly altered the sound of a band's work, but has not been credited in any way as a co-author or co-performer. So yes, closer, but not really much next to the vast body of convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How about you give some direct examples where the same situation exists, but the remixer does not get credit? By this I mean where there is an original version of a song, and a separate remix version that is released and for which the remixer gets no credit. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly: Don't Stand So Close to Me '86, the remix of the Police's 1980 hit, was produced by Laurie Latham, who is not credited. Suzanne Vega's a-capella Tom's Diner was an unheard rarity until it was remixed with a dance beat by DNA - they get no track listing or chronology on that single's page. How many more would you like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You may notice that neither of those remixers currently have an article on every single they have released. Inclduing a chronology would thus be pointless, as it would be full of dead links. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So your argument basically boils down to "Timbaland is an otherwise popular performer in his own right, so he should be included, in violation of precedent, because hey, he's so famous?" I sincerely hope I'm misrepresenting your point here, because as it stands it's basically an argument in favor of the common perception that Wikipedia is not a repository of information, but merely a forum for pop culture of the moment. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it boils down to who, and what, is notable. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What distinction - if any - are you making between "otherwise popular" and "notable" in this case? As pointed out, in every example brought up, INCLUDING those you brought up, an engineer/remixer of a re-release has never - not ONCE - been listed as the author of the piece, nor had their chronology included on a Wikipedia entry. The precedent seems rather dauntingly unanimous. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

They are in fact distinct. Wikipedia:Notability. Actually, I have shown many where they are. You have not given one example that is comparable. Give me an example of a song that was produced, released, later remixed by a notable remixer (one with articles form at least most of their singles), and yet does not get a chronology in the article for the remix. You say I have failed to provide comparable examples. I say you too have failed in this. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you'd like to try to change the grounds of comparison once more, here you go: In ADDITION to the aforementioned Timbaland tracks - i.e., those on which he appears as a remixer but is not given chronology space - you might look at the listing for "Wish," from NIN's "Broken," remixed and re-released by Fouets' J.G. Thirwell - who, despite being the remixer, and having an extensive listing of both albums and singles with articles here on Wikipedia, gets no chronology listing on the single's article. Ditto for the remix of "Starfuckers, Inc." by Dave Ogilvie of Skinny Puppy. Ditto for the remix of "Survivalism" done by Saul Williams. Mariah Carey's Dreamlover was prominently remixed and rereleased as a "Def Club" song by David Morales. No discography listing for him on the single's page. The Chemical Brothers remixed Prodigy's "Voodoo People," and it was that remix version which got TV exposure in Europe - but the Chemical Brothers' chronology is not listed on that single's page. The remix is mentioned where it should be - as a note on the popularization of the song, within the article text. How many more dozens of examples would you like? Change your definition of terms again, and I'll provide you even more examples of precedent. How many more times do you wish to try? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have not changed the grounds for comparison, you just cannot find an example that compares to this. Reasons why your examples fail:

• Pony (Ginuwine song) - the original was produced by Timbaland. Not remixed.
• Big Pimpin' - again, Timbaland produced the original. I am asking for an original song he remixed and then released as a separate entity.
• Rollout (My Business) - as above. He produced the original
• SexyBack - His chronology should be featured, as it is here Anonymous (song)
• Diamond Dogs (song) - simply a case of missing information, the encyclopedia is not complete My bad, I was looking at the album page. Was this version released? Did it satisfy the notability guidlines for wiki?
• Wish (song) - the remix was never released, and thus not notable.
• Starfuckers, Inc. - again, remix not released as a single, never became notable.
  • remember, these are infoboxes for singles. You cannot put a chronology in if it wasn't a single...
• Survivalism (song) - again, not released as a single
• Voodoo People - once again, not released as a single.
• Dreamlover - take a look here David_Morales#Selected_remixes. Hardly many linked articles. The chronology would be full of dead links.

I think that covers them all.Nouse4aname (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what it 'covers' is how much evidence there is that remixes, in general, do not get their own listing, their own infoboxes, or their own chronology links to the remixers. They are, instead, covered within the article text. That is, I think, my whole point. Thank you for proving it for me once again. I note that the only person who has chimed in on the subject below under your request for comment agrees. Is there a standard time after which that commentary is considered a complete record of those who are going to comment? 71.9.8.150 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. It may seem that way, but for different reasons to those you believe. The reason that those remixes do not warrant chronologies is because they, as the remix alone, were not notable enough or were not released as separate entities. Perhaps you need to understand that there is no precedent here. There are no examples that compare to this. The original song was released, and then a year later a remix was created, by Timbaland, which was also released, and charted well, thus making the remix notable in its own right. Contrary to your beliefs, I have proved nothing to you, except that your examples are all invalid and incomparable to this situation. Your prejudices are becoming glaringly obvious, and I urge you to try to maintain a more neutral point of view. Requests for comment are never binding, and are not closed until the discussion ends.Nouse4aname (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

-- "Contrary to your beliefs, I have proved nothing to you." Actually, that accords with my beliefs just about perfectly. So, you now take the position that there is no precedent. Ok. Then there is no support for your contention that Timbaland somehow merits mention on the basis of past examples. Thanks again for your guidance. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The support is simply the fact that he is a co-creator of the music. The lack of comparable examples means nothing. I have never asserted that past examples show he deserves credit, it was you who demanded examples, and you who failed to find any comparable to this. A lack of precedent does not mean that he does not get a chronology....Nouse4aname (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A further point to remember. Without the remix existing, there would likely be no article on this song, as it did not reach notability in its own right. It is now only notable, and worthy of an article because a remix was released which performed well, thus becoming notable.Or perhaps this is what annoys you? Your favourite band having their fame stolen by Timbaland? Nouse4aname (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Authorship

You say yourself "...that the "author" of a song is not its producer, remixer, or publicist. It is the person who composed the music." I would argue that as Timbaland added new sound elements to the original music to create a similar, but significantly different piece of music, then he is in fact one of the composers of the music. Case closed. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1.) You do not get to determine when "case closed." Perhaps you ought to re-read that article on 'ownership' you seem intent upon. 2.) You may argue all you wish, but according to the OED's definition of authorship, reprinted above or freely available under the Wikipedia article of the same name, Timbaland is not an author of this composition. Importantly, not even Timbaland claims to be an author of this piece: merely a "present[er]." To claim otherwise, on the basis of your attempted re-definition of a well-established textual and legal term is tantamount to original research, which I understand is verboten 'round these parts. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The definition of authorship is irrelevant. The OED often incorporates new words and meanings long after they have become widely used and accepted. It is not a gold standard of language to be used, but a collection of language that has been widely used. Remixing may in turn become part of the definition of authorship. It is something that I am sure will be argued in the future. Does taking an original piece of music and remixing it to create a different version of it constitute owndership and authorship of the remixed version? In any case, inclusion of the Timbaland chronology does not indicate any form of authorship. It is simply to allow easy navigation from one single that he appears on to the next. It is not about the legal side of things, authorship, ownership or any kind of cruise ship (go on, you can laugh at that). This is an internet based encyclopedia. The chronology is simply there to allow users to easily navigate. The question you must ask is would a user viewing this article perhaps want to look at other Timbaland singles? The answer is almost certainly yes. For this reason the chronology is included. It does not in itself assert any ownership. It is simply a navigational tool. Why you are so opposed to this I am unsure. Furthermore, you argue that both versions of the song have been used interchangably. I myself have seen the artists named as "OneRepublic", "Timbaland", "Timbaland featuring OneRepublic", "OneRepublic featuring Timbaland", and only rarely as "Timbaland presents OneRepublic", suggesting that all such terms can be used interchangably. The fact that the official artist is "Timbaland presents OneRepublic" is meaningless. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Further point. Take a look here Shock Value (Timbaland album). What is the title on the cover of the album? Yes, that's right, it's "Timbaland presents Shock Value". Now by your logic, Timbaland is just acting as a publiciser of this album, and thus did not contribute in any way to its production. In that case, why don't you head over there and remove the Timbaland chronology from that article too...Nouse4aname (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The definition of authorship is not irrelevant. It is, in fact, the only relevant point. Wikipedia is (supposedly) not about attempting to redefine terms in a way that is convenient to a particular editor or even group of editors. Theoretically, at least, Wikipedia relies upon verifiable sourcing of statements. The ONLY written sources we have in this case, the OED definition of authorship and the actual liner notes to "Apologize," in all of its various releases, all declare that the author of the piece is Ryan Tedder/OneRepublic. Not Timbaland. You suggest that the chronology does not imply authorship. However, why then is not every single artist featured in a single given a chronology link? Why, universally sofar as we've seen any examples, is ONLY the author of the piece given that byline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, the chronology implies no authorship. It is a navigational tool. When will you understand this. Artists that are notable enough usually do feature in chronologies on singles that they appear, whether as the main artist of as a guest. In cases where they do not feature, this is because they have not been put in yet. I notice you conventiently ignore my point about the use of the word "Presents" in the artist name.... Timbaland is in fact a co-author of the remix. It was him, and no one else, who added the samples to the original track to create a new sound. This makes him an author. You claim he does not play an instrument or sing...his instrument is the mixing desk, he adds samples, that's what he does. I will say again, the chronology does not assert that Timbaland is the main author, or main contributor. It is there simply to help navigate. Why do you have such a problem with making the article more user friendly? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not "have such a problem with making the article more user friendly," and your claim that I do says a lot, I think, about your failure throughout this debate to assume good faith on my part. I object to its inclusion for the reasons previously stated: they confuse the issue of authorship. Under the rubric you're suggesting, every single song listing on Wikipedia would have to offer a chronology listing for every single author, performer, producer, mixer, engineer, session artist, remixer, and publicist who were ever associated with the song. It is already an established principle of Wikipedia that "more" does not always equal "better." 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to prove why Timbaland's remixing does not constitute authorship of the music of the remix. Only notable acts would require a chronology. In this instance, Timbaland is a performer, not a producer. His performance is to remix the music. To not have Timbaland in the chronology considering the artist is "Timbaland presents OneRepublic" would be more confusing than what you propose, and is likely to be added in future by other editors even if it was removed. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be at an impasse, not with me, but with the dictionary. "Performer" does not equal "remixer" in any dictionary or encyclopedia, not even the ones cited here on Wikipedia. "Presenter" does not equal "artist," either. You can argue that remixing is a form of "authorship," but to redefine the terminology in that fashion you should take it up with the OED. This hardly seems the forum for it. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See above for why the use of "presenter/presents" is irrelevant. Timbaland "presents" his album, does that mean he didn't contribute to it? I ask you this, who was it that contributed the differences between the original music and the remix music? A simple one word answer is all that is needed....Nouse4aname (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how that "you only get to answer with one word" version of a question is usually considered badgering or leading during legal trials. It's certainly a rhetorical tactic I'm not going to dignify by obeying. Certainly Timbaland contributes to the sound of the remixed version - just as much as I contribute to the sound of the song when I turn up the bass on my stereo at home. Do I get my chronology listed too, as though I were the author of the song? 71.9.8.150 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very funny, although it may have escaped your attention, but this is not a legal trial. I kind of figured you would respond that way anyhow, and it just confirms my feelings that you are unwilling to cooperate with me, or anyone else, on this matter. Furthermore, your comment "Timbaland contributes to the sound of the remixed version - just as much as I contribute to the sound of the song when I turn up the bass on my stereo at home" simply shows your obvious prejudice to this, and thus prevents you from maintaining a neutral point of view. I think we can both agree (or maybe not?) that Timbaland contributed more than just turning a few knobs... Your arguements are also getting a little strained, we have gone over this before. No, you would not get your own chronology. In order to get your chronology listed, both you, and your "remix" would need to become notable. I somehow doubt that will happen if you think you can achieve it by simply "upping the bass". Nouse4aname (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Further note. It strikes me as odd that someone so obsessed with authorship and ownership is willing to allow OneRepublic to be falsely credited with being the sole creators of the remix version of the music. Surely this cannot be correct, as they did not create the entire music. Additional elements were added by Timbaland which together with the original music create a new, original piece. For this very simple fact Timbaland is credited. Just out of interest, have a look at these stats from google to see how relevant the naming is:

• "Timbaland presents OneRepublic" - 14,200 [12]
• "Timbaland presents One Republic" - 172,000 [13]
• "Timbaland featuring OneRepublic" - 219,000 [14]
• "Timbaland featuring One Republic" - 17,200 [15]
• "OneRepublic featuring Timbaland" - 728 [16]
• "One Republic featuring Timbaland" - 816 [17]

By my calculations there are 50,000 more hits for using "featuring" instead of presents. Now I know this is a rather crude experiment, but it just emphasises the actual meaning behind using "presents" or "featuring". i.e. there is none. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

All you've demonstrated with that Google search is that people are grossly misinformed and willing to spread disinformation, even when the original source material (which says "PRESENTS," exclusively) is easily available. That's precisely, I thought, why Wikipedia existed. All you've done is demonstrate why it's so crucial to differentiate between popular opinion ("hey, isn't that that new Timbaland song? Funny, his voice sounds different...") and reality ("Oh, that's because the song is actually by OneRepublic.") Why would you want to be in a position where you're repeating a verified untruth simply because it's a popular untruth? I mean, I can imagine people accidentally ending up doing so...but I can't come up with any rationale for intentionally spreading disinformation 71.9.8.150 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Well perhaps you would care to explain why the album is "Timbaland presents Shock Value"...perhaps you are going to argue that he didn't contribute to this album either...that he is just advertising it...Nouse4aname (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I have maintained from my first post that authorship is a condition which lies outside of whatever name is on the label. The composer of the "Hitler Diaries" forgery is their actual author, not Hitler, no matter whose name appeared on the cover. Just so, no matter how many misinformed people think Timbaland is somehow the "author" of "Apologize," he is not. OneRepublic is. See the dictionary. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right, jump from one ridiculous exhausted arguement to the next...The Hitler Diaries was a fraud, this is not. You seem to be incapable of finding any example that is comparable this...Fact is, Timbaland created the remix. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you will not accept that there is no precedent for crediting remixers (as demonstrated above), and will not accept the definitions of authorship listed in the dictionary and here on Wikipedia, and will not accept the judgment of the admins and other editors (the ones YOU solicited, by the way), and won't refrain from personal attack, I'm afraid I must withdraw entirely from conversation with you. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is no precedent as there are no comparable situations to this. Your obsession with the dictionary is strange and meaningless. The two admins only neglected to protect the page, they did not agree with either side in particular. Two other editors agree with me. A request for comment yielded a comment that shows no knowledge of what we are actually discussing. I have not personally attacked you, I have commented on your prejudices, which prevent you from having an open mind. It will be a shame if you leave, but hey, such is life. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are just a couple of posts that show your prejudice....[18], [19]. You seem to be swinging from one position to the next. First you say that because it is "Timbaland presents OR", Timbaland is not an artist, just an advertiser. Having shown you a glaring flaw with this position, you then decide that it doesn't matter what is on the label. You then ask for examples, I provide some, you refute them. I ask for some from you, I successfully refute those, and then you decide that because there are no comparable examples, there is no precedent, and then that means the chronology does not stay. Wrong. That is not how it works. The lack of precedent does not immediately support your view. Withdrawing from discussion, and reverting the page is completely unacceptable. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You also suggest that because Timbaland does not sing or play an instrument he does not get to be acknowledged as a contributor,[[20]] just to clarify, is that correct? So if he did sing or play an instrument he would be acknowledged? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of Timbaland chronology

I am not sure if I am meant to post a summary of discussion so far or not, but I will for now. Please delete if inappropriate.

The debate basically regards the inclusion of the Timbaland chronology on the infobox of the single. As the artist is listed as "Timbaland presents OneRepublic", and as the remix was done by Timbaland, his chronology was initially included. An IP user now argues that Timbaland is not an author of the song, did not contribute to it and is simply a publiciser of the song, and as such the chronology should not be included. An edit war ensued, and discussion has been ongoing for several days now, with no sign of reaching any agreement. Comments are requested to help gain an outsider's neutral point of view.10:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Opinion: First, that top box is ugly. There's too much crammed into that little space, and it makes it annoying to read. To that end, I think it'd be better to list the original in the box on the top, and then put information about the remix in the article. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• The remix should have it's own infobox. It was more notable than the original. --neonwhite user page talk 00:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note. Now that a compromise seems to have been reached, I have removed this from the RFC list. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I did it wrong, was meant to remove tag from here...oh well, done now. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Since this debate seems to involve several different editors it was removed from WP:3O. WP:3O is specifically for debates that involve no more than two people. Since a request for comment was placed, it seems it's on the right track. Justin ^chat 07:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The single

Regarding this edit summary...."Mos charts don't differentiate versions. The song is the song.". That, I am afraid is wrong. The remix version is technically released as the single. Not the original version. Regardless of what radio stations play, it is the remix that is the primary song.Nouse4aname (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Both versions are available singles. The original by OneRepublic - by definition, as well as de facto - predates the Timbaland re-release. And, per Wikipedia policy, the original entity is the base of the article. Not the remix. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The current single is the remix version. That is the more notable of the tracks. As with cover versions and re-releases that reach the relevant notability guidlines, the remix and original get an infobox. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox or no infobox

You claim there is no precedent to have an infobox for a remix single. True, but not for the reasons you state. It is because no other remix single is notable enough or performed by a notable remixer. A chronology full of dead links is pointless. The remix is the current single, not the original. Timbaland created the remix and performs on it. Authorship means to create something. Timbaland created the remix. What more do you want? It didn;t just magically appear, did it? No, someone had to originate it. Who was that? Yes, Timbaland. And finally, the infobox and chronology is simply for easy navigation. You have provided no valid arguments thus far as to why the chronology should not be there. Please refrain from edit warring and re-enter discussions. 12:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. TRyudo (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs cleanup

This article is a mess at the moment. The introduction tells about us about a sonf of One Republic, and then it get's confusing. Suddenly we read, that it was originally created by One Republic, like we are talking about a cover. There are frequently moments treating the song as Timbalands, without mentioning the reasoning. This has to be corrected, the article is divided into two parts on purpose. BeŻet pl (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Do as you see fit. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be bold if I knew everything about the song and knew which info is about the remix, and which info is about the actual song. BeŻet pl (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this article is divided into two parts as a compromise. Some elements can be clearly divided, others can not. 138.23.246.0 (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's just say the article sucks at the moment. We need both sides of the above discussion to come back and discuss a complete rewrite instead of taking away and adding bits to the article, which made the whole thing a mess. Herunar (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

2006 release?

Well, I took a look here: http://www.discogs.com/release/1220405 , and as you guys can see, this IS the ORIGINAL! (track 2) So can anyone confirm the 2006 release somehow? I took many researches, but did not find a MCD released in 2006 of the original song. -andy 85.176.228.48 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you view the video linked at the end of my post, this is an UNOFFICIAL video created by Aaron Platt. This uses a version not debated on these pages. His upload date and info on the video have a Dec. 2006 listing. I'd have to re-trace my steps and find some further references, but I swear I've seen a page that states the song was originally recorded in 2005. Anywho, here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm0T7_SGee4 Mike (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK just to add to what I said before, on the OneRepublic page under the Appearances section it lists the song as having debuted in 2005. Further adding to whatever debate there is about this great song... Mike (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Charts

Ok, I know this has been said before but right now the chart data is kind of confusing. We have a section near the end called "Charts" it claims that this is chart data for the REMIX version. Than two sections above it there is a section called "Chart Performance" , and it does not mention what version of a song it is talking about. Is there any way to reconcile this? I am not familiar with the two versions of the song. But if it is indeed the remix version that is talked about in the "Chart Performance" section then that should be indicated. Or else it is misleading. What do you guys think?PolkovnikKGB (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the sentence "This is the chart performance of the "Remix" version of "Apologize" " was removed from the chart section. I checked most of the sources from the chart data and they clearly indicated that the chart data is for the Remix version. I am adding the sentence back in, because as I said, if it is not there than the article is clearly misleading.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The charts, particularly those on the Billboard model, collate plays and requests for the song, including those stations (such as the highly influential KROQ and STAR98.7 in Los Angeles) which are playing the OneRepublic version rather than Timbaland's remix. The very fact that half the charts inaccurately list the performer (as "Timbaland FEATURING..." rather than the accurate "Timbaland PRESENTS...") should have tipped you off that they are not actually discriminating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.246.12 (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to prove taht these charts do collate plays as you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.156.101 (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only is this established - look it up - but it's in the article itself, for instance in the commentary related to the Euro Hot 100 award for new acts. Unless you somehow think "Timbaland" is suddenly a "new" act. 138.23.246.12 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"The song Apologize by Timbaland and OneRepublic ..." None of the references state that plays etc are collated. you need to prove this is so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.156.101 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, in the comments you clearly didn't read, those listings are erroneous on the face of them - the song was never, EVER released as "Timbaland FEATURING OneRepublic" nor as "by" Timbaland. Moreover, had you bothered to read wikipedia's own sourced entry on remixes and charts: "Under normal circumstances, airplay points from a song’s album version, "radio" mix and/or dance music remix, etc. were all combined and factored into the song’s performance on the Hot 100, as the structure, lyrics and melody remained intact." The exceptions are songs which are entirely re-recorded, which Apologize was not. So no, there is no way to distinguish which plays and/or requests were for the original and which for the remix. The charts treat them as indistinguishable. Next time, please do your own homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.246.12 (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

138.23.246.12, Well if you feel that that's then then you probably should not use those references. Because right now, you are misrepresenting the references. It's like "The source that I have says thing A, but I think they are lying, and in reality they mean thing B. But I will use the source anyway, even though I will completely misrepresent what they say." You might be right about the tallying or you might be not. But if we are going to use chart's website as a source then it should mentioned that the source states that this is the "Remix version"PolkovnikKGB (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You ask why I claim the charts do NOT differentiate. I tell you, quite clearly,with cited examples. You ask for a source for the claim that the charts don't differentiate. I give it to you. Then you try to say "well, what the sources say doesn't matter?" No. If we were to suddenly ditch the verified fact that the charts collate the versions (as demonstrated with quotations from the source material, above), we'd be suddenly listing various charts under whatever various titles and artists they have sometimes entirely erroneously listed. Some of those charts list the song as "Apologize by Timbaland featuring OneRepublic," even though no such song exists (the remix was released as "Timbaland PRESENTS OneRepublic." Heck, some of them don't even spell the band's name correctly, attributing the song to "One Republic," which is spelled incorrectly. We could list each and every one of those typos and variants, and make fifteen different charts, one for each of them. I think, instead, we'll have to live in the land of reality, where the charts (quotation from source AGAIN) "combines different versions of songs for a summarized figure" unless (quoting AGAIN from the source here) "completely re-recorded to the point that they no longer resembled the original recording." See the articles on BillBoard charts, the Billboard HOt100, Billboard Hot digital, and notes of how remixes are collated under those article headings. 138.23.246.12 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

On 'official' versions

Currently, there is a heading for "Official" versions of the somg. I would have thought that by "official," one indicated a formally released single, rather than a fan mix, however prominent the fan. As far as I can tell, the only "official" releases of Apologize, therefore, would be the two featured on Dreaming Out Loud, i.e., the original song performed by OneRepublic, and the remix presented by Timbaland. Where do all these other so-called "official" remixes get their imprimature? I'm curious because it seems as though what is meant here is not "official," but "kind of popular, in someone's personal guesstimation." The former is an encyclopedic, verifiable state. The latter is not. Comment? 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"spins"

"The song is the biggest radio airplay hit in the history of Top 40 radio in North America, racking up an astounding 10,693 spins in one week, breaking the previous record by 370 spins (according to radio airplay tracking company Mediabase). "

I have a hard time believing this. Can someone add some sort of documentation beyond just crediting Mediabase — a link to the data, perhaps? 76.120.13.180 (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On the authorship

The only song released was the Timbaland remix - that's the point. OneRepublic's version got no release whatsoever. They didn't chart together - rules don't allow songs and remixes to chart together. They charted separately and OneRepublic's original version didn't chart at all. This has all been thoroughly laid out above by Nouse4aname. I don't see any point of dispute here. Herunar (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the (extensive} commentary above on these issues. OneRepublic's song was released, and radio plays for both versions were collated. I understand there's a lot of material to go over...would you like pointers to the relevant sections? 71.9.8.150 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This was all dealt with months ago. Although the remix version appears to be the major hit, as has been correctly pointed out, some (if not most) charts collate both versions. The article should remain as it is. There is no new ground to cover. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The listed version is the remix version. That's the point. Whatever the argument, the official version of the song includes Timbaland. Having almost nothing about Timbaland's remix and then having nothing about the original version in the actual article is ridiculous. Herunar (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, please see above. The "listed" version is not by any means necessarily the Remix version. And even if it were, it wouldn't matter: songs are categorized by title, with remixes following, not vice versa. Both the original song and Timbaland's remix are covered in both infobox form and the article proper, in a manner consistent with similar historic cases (see, for example, "I will Always Love You," popularized by both Dolly Parton and Whitney Houston, or "Blue Suede Shoes," which was a relatively minor Carl Perkins tune until Elvis Presley covered it...yet Perkins (correctly) gets top billing in the article, as the originator. That's the nature of authorship). Again, this has been hashed out above. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Erronous attribution to Justin Timberlake

I have realized, that many people erroneously think that this song is performed by Justin Timberlake. This is most likely due to the fact, that the singers voice resables that of Justin Timberlake. As well many seem to mishear "Timbalad" foor "Timberlake". Moreover I had to realise, that this song is also often attributed wrongly to Justin Timberlake on YouTube, which definitevly contributes to the confusion. To help other confused, I have added a clarifying sentence to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.52.195 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Song Lyrics

The article mentions "the song explores the personal pain of multiple relationships gone awry and the necessity of moving on." wouldn't it be good to reference song lyrics? i.e. Apologize - Song Lyrics) Alexme (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, to speculate on precisely which lyrics Tedder intended to convey a particular message would constitute "Original Research." In addition, there are a number of legal reasons Wikipedia avoids listing song lyrics. So no, I think we have to stick with the author's statement about the song's meaning and leave it at that. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Remix is the seller, not the song

It's the Timbaland remix that is the success single, not the song by the band itself. This is inherently unclear in the article. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The remix is the most successful of the two versions, but since there is some confusion as to who actually performs the song, Timbaland or OneRepublic, I added "Apologize featuring OneRepublic" to help clarify that point. :D Idecipher (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

external link suggestion

Wikichap33 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC) This page has very good information about this song: video, lyrics and meaning of the song. How about adding it to the External Links section?

http://www.multimedia-english.com/htm/music/2008/apologize.htm

• No it is unnecessary information. Firstly the copyrights of the lyrics are held by record companies. Secondly, "meanings" of songs are fan interpretations and not classified as factual information. Wikipedia is a factual encyclopeida, and therefore it is not suitable. Reqluce (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Platt's not set to Timberland

I'm looking at talk:99.174.233.4|talk]]) 18:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of song

It is widely believed that this song is about the issue of suicide."Im holding on your rope got me ten feet of the ground","you tell me that you need me then you go and cut me down".This has never been confirmed or denied by the songs writer Ryan Tedder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.67.168 (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Most downloaded song of all time in Australia?

A quick look at the ARIA site will reveal that whilst it was the most downloaded single of all time in AUS/NZ at one point, it has since been surpassed by many songs. The current most downloaded single is "Poker Face" by Lady Gaga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.102.84 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria info problem?

Someone stuffed this message in the article text in the chart section. Please use only Talk pages to highlight problems! OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"INVALID BULGARIAN CHART ENTERED! Only the charts at www.bamp-bg.org are acceptable. Please link to an individual chart, and remember that the charts published at acharts.us are not acceptable"

Sorry, it's actually a template marking. But the warning's problem is still here! OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed the bad singlechart call. Would have been best if the person that added the entry had taken the time to notice the error.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sample

Hong Kong singer Joey Yung's Too Busy (很忙), from the album of the same name sampled the arrangement and chord sequence from this song — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbagigafreak (talk • contribs) 08:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Declaration" version

I was introduced to this song by the "Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration" version, an educative parody about the American Revolution. With over 3 million views on Youtube, I suppose it is noteworthy and ought to be mentioned in this article. -- Stormwatch (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Silverstein cover

Shouldn't Silverstein's cover of Apologize be mentioned in the article. It is from the album, "Punk Goes Pop 2"? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Punk_Goes_Pop_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindiboi (talk • contribs) 01:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologize (OneRepublic song) → Apologize (song) – I know that further disambiguation is required when there's two or more songs with the same title, but surely we can make an exception if there's only two songs AND one of them isn't the slightest bit notable? Only two pages link to the other song and its only claim to fame is that it won an award which hasn't even got an article (see Stand by Me (song) for example). In fact, given that these are the only two things called "Apologize" and everything else is either called "Apology" or "The Apology", I could even make a claim that we don't need any brackets at all. Unreal7 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Apologize (disambiguation), WP:Naming conventions (music)/WP:SONGDAB, Apologize (Ed Ames song) etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The disambiguation should be completely disambiguated. kennethaw88 • talk 01:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose WP:NCM and WP:PRECISE this is a failure to sufficiently specify a topic to distinguish it from another, which even has a full-up article. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - partial disambiguation is generally bad. Red Slash 20:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Apologize (OneRepublic song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131002100728/http://2m-online.ru/news/detail.php?ID=5659 to http://2m-online.ru/news/detail.php?ID=5659

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apologize (OneRepublic song). 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/20110501090330/http://www.austriancharts.at/2007_single.asp to http://www.austriancharts.at/2007_single.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Apologize (OneRepublic song). 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/20100815211835/http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/60011/chart-watch-extra-top-20-songs-in-digital-history to http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/60011/chart-watch-extra-top-20-songs-in-digital-history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111013100840/http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/74363/week-ending-may-8-2011-songs-rolling-in-the-dough/ to http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/74363/week-ending-may-8-2011-songs-rolling-in-the-dough/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121150255/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20070001 to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20070001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224110249/http://www.austriancharts.at/2008_single.asp to http://www.austriancharts.at/2008_single.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101228195209/http://mahasz.hu/?menu=slagerlistak&menu2=eves_osszesitett_listak&id=radios&ev=2008 to http://www.mahasz.hu/?menu=slagerlistak&menu2=eves_osszesitett_listak&id=radios&ev=2008

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apologize (OneRepublic song). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiocharts.com/html/charts_de_main.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121150254/http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20080001 to http://www.hitlistan.se/netdata/ghl002.mbr/lista?liid=43&dfom=20080001

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Cello rock ---> Baroque Pop

This song is listed as "cello rock" (which is not a genre) and when you click on it, it links to progressive rock, which this song is not. I think the person who put cello rock was meaning baroque pop, as that is rock/pop with orchestral instruments. So, we need to change "cello rock" to baroque pop to prevent confusion. SuperLuigi22 (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The violins pretty heavily dominate the song. 129.64.152.58 (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)