Jump to content

Talk:Welcome to the Jungle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 07:21, 16 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Untitled

[edit]

I have tried to reorganize this article somewhat. I noticed that a lot of information (all good) was being presented all together; in the trivia there was a lot of stuff being repeated. I have not deleted anything; it's all been incorporated into the body of the article, including the trivia items. I hope everyone's cool with the edit. DanielEng 12:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Limp Bizkit reference

[edit]

In Limp Bizkit's song 'My Generation' the first verse opens with the lyric "do you know where you are?! welcome to the jungle, (punk)". Shouldn't this be in Trivia or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.121.33 (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


University of Tennessee Patty Campbell

[edit]

Is anybody actually able to verify this? Pictures would be fine.

What?

[edit]

The first single from Appetite For Destruction? Wasn't it "It's so easy"?

Yes. Bucketheader 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...regularly played at sporting events worldwide." At sporting events? It's played regularly everywhere! This sentence makes no sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.130.5 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh my god can be heard in "jungle" at..

[edit]

0:07. if you listen closely you can hear it

And? What's your point? Bucketheader 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, guys. This happened

[edit]
We should put it in.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarcistPig (talk • contribs) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal

[edit]

Hey, this song is number 2 on VH1's 40 Greatest Metal Songs. Heavy metal should be a genre added. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyric origin

[edit]

The referenced used in the following paragraph is hardly reputable and is not "According to Rose". Should read according to some really old fan site".

According to Rose, the inspiration for the lyrics came from an encounter he and a friend had with a man while they were sleeping in a school yard in Queens. When they were approached by the "little black man", [1] he yelled at them, "You know where you are? You're in the jungle baby; you're gonna die!" 97.119.202.9 (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? (starts from 0:16)... Yuval1981 (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Used in Death Race Commercial

[edit]

The song is used in the death race commercial, I'm not sure if its used in the actual movie (not likely). --71.187.140.31 (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal

[edit]

For heaven's sake even the low standard of "The Final Countdown" is listed as a metal song. Why can't "Welcome to the Jungle"? It is way heavier. Rolling Stone called the song "full-throttle metal" (source: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/greatestsingers/page/64 ) And it made VH1's 40 greatest metal songs list. Rockgenre (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC) There has been some discussion about the topic before. But the consensus has always been that it should not be added. VH1 lists are not considered to be reliable sources. Many of the songs included on VH1 metal lists are not heavy metal as the network tends to lump punk and grunge and hard rock into the one label. And Rolling Stone is not a dedicated heavy metal publication so it should not be used as a single source for anything within the subject. It can be used as a supporting reference for a more suitable source like Kerrang or Metal Hammer. But on its own Rolling Stone should never be sourced for heavy metal since, throughout its history, it has been very anti-heavy metal in its coverage of the sub-genre. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a biased opinion you have Aussie. Since when is Rolling Stone not a reliable source? Even if I did have another you would most likely removed it anyway. And why didn't you answer the question I asked? "Why can't "Welcome to the Jungle"?" Like I said compare it to "The Final Countdown" and it's way heavier.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another source for it being metal http://www.blender.com/lists/68125/500-greatest-songs-since-you-were-born-451-500.html?p=8 . Rockgenre (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Black

[edit]

Tori Black, as can be seen in her on page, has just BORN in 1988. No way she was Axl's long time friend. And it turns out she has 22 years. 189.25.54.225 (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm guessing that it's a different person with the same name. So I have removed the Wikilink and added a cite needed tag. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Peak

[edit]

Shouldn't it be noted that this song had a rerelease in the US as well after the success of "Sweet Child O Mine"? --Azul120 (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC) This article should be deleted because it is poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.3.215 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because the tagger did not give a reason.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to change the status quo, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– This almost certainly won't pass (partly since convention dictates the discussion takes place on the Talk page of the article currently awarded the unusual status of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC not on the talk pages of the six or seven other articles), however I think it's worth asking the question - is a song which was No.7 in the US and No.24 in the UK 27 years ago still so notable that it unquestionably outweighs all other films, songs, books and albums at Welcome to the Jungle (disambiguation) combined in the 27 years since? I expect page views will say "yes it does - more than all other articles taken together", but Welcome to the Jungle to teenagers is clearly going to mean last year's comedy Welcome to the Jungle (2013 film) starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, or Welcome to the Jungle (Neon Jungle album) No.8 in UK and Welcome to the Jungle (Neon Jungle song) 2014. Okay that's WP:RECENT but the girl group song was No.7 on UK hit parade in July 2014 - better than Guns N' Roses did during their parents' day, and indicating Guns N' Roses aren't as big outside US as in US. Even if only 10% of Wikipedia's song readers are under 40, are we helping that 10% by not clearly titling the older song? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, whether with guns or roses, some things can overstay their welcome . Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Nom built the case himself. The Guns N' Roses song started it all. Everything else is attempting to capitalize on the fame for the phrase created by the song. Record sales alone do not indicate the importance of this song. 27 years ago, overstayed its "welcome" WP:NTEMP. The song created the fame for the previously unknown band. The soap opera about the band would not carry significance without the song initiating their fame. Their story would have no interest, their welcome would not be overstayed if they only had 15 minutes of fame from a #7 hit. ". . . named the greatest hard rock song of all time by VH1" is nothing to sneeze at. The extensive MTV airplay, the additional usages (advertising, background themes) of the song extend its fame. Now it is tired, old news. That is a WP:RECENT view of things. Trackinfo (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hollywood movies are internationally marketed. United States music is not. There are multiple movies with international distribution and large budgets which go by this name also. A search for this topic should go to the disambiguation page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear, we are talking about a 2013 American film starring Jean-Claude Van Damme that so far as zero box office and just above $60,000 in DVD sales see here, a 2007 American film with a no name cast that doesn't show in the box office, and an unofficial sub-title to a 2003 WWE (American) film, starring professional wrestler The Rock that was trying to pawn off of the success of the song title (as the WWE does to any fad it can capitalize on) and while making $81 million, was budgeted at $85 million, meaning it lost serious money. That doesn't show nearly the prominence compared to the "greatest hard rock song of all time." Trackinfo (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After this comment I ran the views, and was surprised by the result:
(2013 film) = 9342 times in 2014 09
(Guns N'Roses song) = 8192 times in 2014 09
(Neon Jungle album) = 3926 times in 2014 09
(2007 film) = 1516 times in 2014 09
(Neon Jungle song) = 1047 times in 2014 09
(disambiguation) = 719 times in 2014 09
(Frano El Gorila album) = 290 times in 2014 09
(comics) = 216 times in 2014 09
In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you were not addressing me; but did you notice that if you take "guns" out of your query you get about 5X more book hits? I don't see the point of your books claim here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, IIO is commonly associated to the "what Google Books say, is what Wikipedia should do", because "Google, Inc. own us". As such Google Books give several hits for GN'R song. Although it is true if you remove "Guns" from the search, the books appearing there are not notable, and their authors as well, only Kobena Mercer is notable (and probably Jim Klein if they are the same). From page 1:
What we can read is all titles are "Welcome to the Jungle: Subtitle", not "Welcome to the Jungle" alone, and I'm quite sure they are named after the song considering all books were released after 1987. For example "Welcome to the Jungle: Everything You Need to Know to Be a Bengals Fan" is titled as such because GN'R song is used by Cincinnati Bengals,[3] and it is "Everything You Need to Know to Be a Bengals Fan". If asking the authors why decided to title their works as such, can also prove my argument. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Can't see no reason to hide Guns N Roses from a Guns N Roses song. Curiously, and in addition, I note that none of the stats provided by either side conclusively prove there is a long-term significant educational subject by this title (which is required by primarytopic). Two flies crawling up a wall, now which one is primary topic? --Richhoncho (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to hide France from Paris neither, but I'm not going to request a move. You see "no reason to hide" an artist name in any song because you have a conflict of interest trying to forbidde albums and songs to be primary topics[4][5][6] and with, conveniently, supporting everything IIO proposes and oppose everything IIO opposes,[7][8] as provided by your current RMs, and previous RMs. Also, what page view stats are saying is the 2013 film has been viewed "9342 times in 2014 09", this song "8192 times in 2014 09", and the DAB page "719 times in 2014 09". Mathematically talking, it is impossible that those who arrive to this article are looking for the 2013 film. It is more likely they arrive through Van Damme's page. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says "There are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." and "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Welcome to the Jungle is linked in almost a 1000 Wikipedia pages meanwhile Welcome to the Jungle (2013 film) is linked in almost 50, according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC this song "it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Also "with respect to long-term significance", the fact several books released after 1987 share the title, and later a subtitle, it "it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Considering more than 2,000 magazines and books cite the song, you need a better argument and evidence than "no reason to hide Guns N Roses from a Guns N Roses song". © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 16:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. May I remind you that the very title of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is "Is there a primary topic?" not "there must be a primary topic" The rest of the guideline uses words like "sometimes" and "may" and not your default position of "must." So if some editors don't think that a song and Paris equate there might actually be a good reason. FWIW, the film above get 37% of the hits, the song 32% so neither are exactly primary topic as suggested by the guideline - you really should read the guideline sometime. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Is there a primary topic?" Yes, you are saying no but give 0 evidence this song is not primary at the same time. We can do the @Dohn joe: test at Welcome to the Jungle (disambiguation). For those who doesn't know it, is to include a "(redirect)" to the articles listed in "Welcome to the Jungle (disambiguation)", like Welcome to the Jungle (redirect), Welcome to the Jungle (2013 film) (redirect), Welcome to the Jungle (Franco "El Gorila" album) (redirect), etc. Just because there are "37% of the hits", it doesn't mean people arrive through "Welcome to the Jungle" or "Welcome to the Jungle (disambiguation)" to the 2013 film, as I told you it is mathematically impossible as "Welcome to the Jungle (disambiguation)" receives 700 monthly hits. Meanwhile Jean-Claude Van Damme's page received this month 126,535 hits. Other recent films starring Van Damme get 6601 hits, 6431 hits and 5268 hits. As I also said, it is more likely they arrive through Van Damme's page or even a Google search. As Gh87 said below, in a few years the 2013 film will stabilize its view like The Blind Side (film), which was once ranked 127 "in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.", according to stats.grok.se. data. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat the question is "Is there a primary topic? NOT There is a primary topic now prove otherwise. You have to prove there is a primary topic. Attempted browbeating and haranguing other editors (as below) proves something else. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my answer ""Is there a primary topic? YES". And I have provided enough evidence. Other users as well. If you are expecting me to change to "support", you are expecting too much. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. People look up songs to listen to them, not to read about them. Films make a better encyclopedia topics. The fact that an appalling 2013 movie no one has seen gets more page views than a classic rock song and generational anthem is proof positive of this theory. Confabulationist (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not YouTube for people "to listen to songs" here, and I'm sure they know this is an encyclopedia where they have to read for information. And as I said above, people are not looking the film through this page, but through Van Damme's page. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I googled "Welcome to the Jungle", I got four results for the film, four for Gun 'N' Roses, and one for Neon Jungle. The first page of results includes the Wiki articles for both the film and the song. There is no reason to assume that readers are going through Van Damme's page. Confabulationist (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Now is too soon to declare the whole song no longer primary. The film is just one year old. I'm sure that the viewership will decrease next year or two. Perhaps we should see how the film surpasses the song's historical significance. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly oppose -- Weakly because as the page view numbers currently stand this topic is not clearly the primary. However, there is substantial evidence that this is largely due to recentism, and that the Guns and Roses song displays the most evidence of long term significance. Evidence includes the song's overwhelming prominence in popularity as seen on iTunes for the UK, USA, and Canada, from a youtube search, and perhaps most importantly, in its inclusion on Rolling Stone's 500 best songs of all time list. None of the other topics display any likelihood of continually notable, and I expect the numbers will soon reflect that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this song is undoubtedly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The key

[edit]

If the key is needed to mention, this would be rather D# minor than F# major, so I changed the class. But is the key needed to mention?--2001:14BB:6D8:C6EA:E469:1BE1:8A0E:76D8 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to me mentioned and cited in the article, which it's not. So I removed it. Thanks for pointing this out! Adakiko (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clear, thanks for answering, Adakiko. I noticed that there is a whole category with subcategories. I have begun to think whether they are all correct (is song's key F# major or D# minor, A major or F# minor, et cetera). Maybe they should be checked. Because I guess that there are some songs that have key mentioned as Bb minor because it sounds like Bbm, although it has been played in B minor, but with Half-step-down tuning, when it sounds like Bb minor. It is difficult to say, if Bb minor or B minor is better in that kind of cases. (Same with B major or C major, Gb major or G major, et cetera.)--37.33.213.92 (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key should be mentioned in the article and that should probably wp:cite a wp:reliable source. (see [[help:referencing for beginners) Adding what the key is from personal observation / analysis is probably wp:Original research. Though it may be WP:SKYISBLUE - I'm probably classifiable as tone deaf, so I wouldn't know. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is good to know. I asked this, because Binksternet removed key here with reason "key signature is not defining in pop music, as it may be changed trivially for performance convenience".--37.33.157.156 (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The category "Songs composed in D-sharp minor" has a problem in the word "composed". We have no idea whether "Welcome to the Jungle" was composed in one key or another unless the literature describes the composition process and names the key. The band could have composed the song in one key and then played it in another key to adjust for vocal performance—it happens. A more appropriate category might be "Songs recorded in D-sharp minor", or "Songs with sheet music published in D-sharp minor". Both of those categories would need a music publisher source at the very least. Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Welcome_to_the_Jungle&oldid=1208005220"