Jump to content

Talk:Gangnam Style

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 3930K (talk | contribs) at 19:14, 9 October 2012 (→Update frequency). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For the scenes in music video of this.

Daily newspapers update

Can someone with editing right add the following to "National daily newspapers who reported on this..." section: Serbia, Blic / Blic Online, URL: http://www.blic.rs/Zabava/Vesti/343464/Gangnam-style-usao-u-pet-najgledanijih-spotova-na-Jutjubu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.34.190 (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Who cares about this "Gangnam Style" crap? Its just a bunch of Asian hysteria and should be deleted from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.137.99 (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language explanation

Is this supposed to be an article about a Korean song or the Korean language? 186.178.110.47 (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph/sentence...

"In Korean colloquialism, "오빤 강남 스타일 (Oppan Gangnam style)" may be translated as "I am (loving) the Gangnam style." or literally translated as "I am Gangnam style." or "A Gangnam-styled girl is my style." because the Korean word 오빠 (oppa), which is a noun meaning "a female's elder brother" but can be also used as a first-, second- or third-person masculine pronoun to designate a male who is elder or older than a female, is used as a first-person pronoun in this phrase and 오빤 (oppan) is an abbreviation of 오빠는 (oppaneun) which is translated as "I am" when 오빠 (oppa) is used as a first-person pronoun."

...is virtually incomprehensible. I'd have a got at cleaning it up myself but I'd probably interpret the explanation wrong since I don't know Korean. MuJoCh (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

오빠는 강남 스타일 (오빤 강남 스타일) translates well into "Big brother's Gangnam Style" or in the sense that 오빠 is used as first-person "My Gangnam Style". "I am Gangnam Style" doesn't really make a lot of sense imo ㅜㅜ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.67.171 (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the literal translation, which does somehow fit into the comic nature of the music video. Anyway, I hopefully clarified the situation in the latest version. --C S (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Korean. In my sense, "Oppan Ganngam style" means "I like a girl in Gangnam style". --Cheol (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chart positions

Gangnam Style video just broke into the "YouTube All Time Most Watched Top 10" list beating out Eminem's "Don't Be Afraid" for tenth spot as of October 4, 2012 REF: http://seoulspace.co.kr/2012/10/04/top10youtube-alltime/ http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_10_youtube_videos_of_all_time.php I actually think this would be worthy of mention in the default description section. Chart is great, but its a youtube video and now its in the top 10 of all time. That's a big deal, imho. Richardmin (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Richard Min /seoul space blogRichardmin (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gangnam Style entered the Norwegian VG-lista today at #19 - can someone add this? Source: http://lista.vg.no/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.162.65.46 (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Proof --Funky Buraz (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the opening stanza, it's mentioned that the song has made #1 in Australia citing the iTunes Australia chart. This is not our official chart, ARIA singles chart is and as of 26/09/2012 it sits at #2. I'm expecting it to go to #1 here next week but the amount of sources that incorrectly cite the iTunes chart (which only counts for ~70% of the AU market) are numerous and inaccurate I think, please amend. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.149.115 (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrectly listed as #1 in the UK singles chart. It is currently #3. Will probably be #1 on Sunday as its currently #1 on the mid week update see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles & http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/update/singles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.218.155.251 (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone magazine posted a nice breakdown of the video sequences with commentary by Psy; it might be good for the music video overview section: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/breaking-down-psys-gangnam-style-20120914 AngusWOOF (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-exhaustive list"?...Really?

Considering the article calls out T-Pain I can understand including a link to the original tweet. But do we really need a list of arbitray list of Tweets from random celebrities (A-List or otherwise) who have mentioned. Heck, not even mentioning the video specifically...just using the words "Gangnam Style". -- TRTX T / C 16:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i only included those in the music and entertainment industry, there are more. and 90% of them also shared the video, not just mentioning it. -A1candidate (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we also need to include any media outlets that may have shown clips or mentioned this? I repeat the previous statement that the list is arbitray, and reads like somebody who searched "Gangnam Style" on Twitter and threw in the first handful of celebs they recognized. Do we need to start providing a list of celeb tweets for every meme that makes its way through the internet? -- TRTX T / C 20:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the point of celebrity tweets is to demonstrate the video's social influence, and allow the reader to understand why it got popular -A1candidate (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

← I have removed the list and inserted the proper references regarding T-Pain into the main paragraph text. Pleaes do not re-add without first discussing it further. A list of random celebrities mentioning the video does not automatically become encyclopedic, especially when two of those celebrities (T-Pain and Britney Spears) are already documented in the article proper (T-Pain as one of the people who first brought the video to public attention, and Spears for her appearance with the artist on the Ellen Show). Without some sort of boundary, where do we draw the line? As the list itself is just one person's take on who is "notable" enough to be included. Hence why it's an arbitrary list. If you wish to include further artists, then integrate their importance to the subject with third party results, instead of simply linking to the tweets mentioning the song. The fact that you admit that "there are more" is further evidence that the list was culled with no specific boundaries set. Inclusion (or lack there of) is meaningless when viewed by anybody other than the person who created it. -- TRTX T / C 20:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Williams -> First to mention it
T-Pain -> First to tweet about it
Katy Perry -> Most number of retweets (12,000)
Britney Spears -> Ellen Degeners Show
LMFAO -> His music is considered by many to be similar to Psy's
Tom Cruise -> First actor to mention it
Scooter Braun -> Psy's manager -A1candidate (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
adding this back to the article if nobody has any objections -A1candidate (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


added back a short list since nobody has voiced any objections. Please write on the talk page before deleting. -A1candidate (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I included William Gibson's comment on the song since it seemed fairly relevant. I omitted the full quote since it's a lot longer than much of the tweeted entries, but here it is: "You know that “Gangnam Style” video from Korea? That’s kind of in the ballpark, you know? That’s something from a subculture we would have no way of knowing anything about, and suddenly it’s on YouTube and it’s got millions and millions of hits, and people all over the world are saying, “Wow, will you check this out?” That’s something. That’s something like that. But it doesn’t necessarily play out in the same way…. Our expectations and what it could become are different." (Source: WIRED)--DrWho42 (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea Parody

Shouldn't we have a link to the video? I've been looking all around for it anybody have any idea of the link!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.108 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to CNN, the link is supposed to be : http://www.uriminzokkiri.com/itv/php_tmp/flvplayer.php?no=11566
(http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/asia/north-korea-gangnam-video/index.html)
but some how i keep getting 504 Gateway Time-out whenever i click it
am i the only one who cant view the video??? -A1candidate (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely down at the RTMP level. —Cupco 04:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gangnam Style parodies and reaction videos

It looks like this is a new article now. Do we really need a chart that ranks the popularity of the videos on the main page? That's too much to maintain. AngusWOOF (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Popularity" and ranking based on views is unneccesary and creates a need to constantly update the list. If there is a need for this list, then it's better as a chronilogical list of videos and why they're notable. As with the above discussion regarding random celebrities tweeting about the video, there needs to be a reason why the video is included (parody's recieving noteable third party coverage or inclusion in a noteable TV series, film, or other form of media would be valid reasons for inclusion) -- TRTX T / C 20:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that 2-3 notable videos get mentioned by some big newspaper everyday, this section will fill up half the page before October. Suggestions? -A1candidate (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AngusWOOF and TRTX. I really do not think we need to be maintaining lists of the song's trending popularity or its continued, "non-exhaustive" mentions and tweets by other celebrities and news sources. It is highly unnecessary for a Wikipedia article. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign news sources are included to give the article views from a global perspective, selected tweets by celebrities are included due to its significance to the singer's career (see above) -A1candidate (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pump up the Jam

Isn't this song a cover of "Pump up the Jam" by Technotronic? I mean the music is quite similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.147.183 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but not an obvious sampling like he did with Axel F. Can someone provide a news source that relates the two songs? The Paul Lester article has these quotes.
* "It is, basically, Pump up the Jam meets the Macarena with a dash of Cotton Eye Joe."
* "It's generic ravey Euro dance with guitars, or at least it is if Psy's other tunes are any measure. These range from the thrashy disco of Blue Frog and Champion, which heavily samples Axel F by Harold Faltermeyer, to the homogenous guitar/synth sub-Prodigy blare that is Right Now and the rap-metal revisited of We Are the One, although we like the video, in which the North Korean military kidnap Psy."
The former is almost source worthy but I was hoping for a writeup like the second quote. AngusWOOF (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Social influence of Gangnam Style

Social influence of Gangnam Style was recently marked for proposed deletion. You can join the discussion here.--DrWho42 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft II

StarCraft II has no enormous fanbase in South Korea, and their players are hardly celebrities in Gangnam-go. At the very least it's not in the source, since the source is nothing but a youtube video of Stephano (French player) dancing after his victory in European qualifiers in Sweden. Hence I'm removing the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.119.185.29 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your first statement since it is an unofficial "national sport" (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-27/tech/south.korea.starcraft_1_starcraft-ii-gaming-market-internet-cafes?_s=PM:TECH) but you can apply significant secondary media coverage and see if the source qualifies (a Youtube fan video by itself wouldn't). I've only found rtsguru so far (http://www.rtsguru.com/game/1/article/4060/StarCraft-II-World-Championship-Series-A-Truly-Global-eSports-Event..html) AngusWOOF (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Outside the anglosphere"

Without commenting on the use of the word "anglosphere", surely "Gangnam Style" is notable for being popular outside Korea (rather than outside English-speaking countries). 122.59.249.222 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a bit weird, especially when you consider that most of Asia is outside the Anglosphere, but the section under discussion seems focused on not using Asian sources. (Now I noticed the section has been renamed "Outside of North America", which seems even more bizarre). --C S (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
help add some Asian sources, references outside North America are included to give the article a global perspective -A1candidate (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subheading "Outside of North America" made no sense at all, and wasn't that necessary since the section isn't overlong. I removed the subheading entirely. --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

OK, this article is a mess. There are quotes everywhere, as are tables. The references aren't properly formatted. The tables need to be turned into prose. And some more encyclopediac info should be added. I'll be starting on these --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take another shot at organizing the second paragraph? Why are flash mobs pushed to the top, when people haven't even started dancing to it for their weddings and social events? It should mention the celebrity tweets and parodies (as early as July), then flash mobs (August), media appearances (September), and finally sports (mid-late September). Also the flash mobs and sports stuff need to be offloaded or merged with the popular culture page, as the two lists are diverging. AngusWOOF (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

More needs to be said about Psy's use of satire in the video. In addition to the music and fun, there is a deeper narrative against the superficial nature of Gangnam show offs. If you've ever been to Garosuguil, you know what I'm talking about. Please do not delete this section, it is a key point to make.CrimsonSwift (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

The title says it all!--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no vandalism.Greg Heffley 20:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
look again -A1candidate (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it now protected?--88.111.121.131 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no vandalism when I made this comment. However, there is no recent vandalism to use to make this page protected.Greg Heffley 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's too late, it's protected now!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABC (good morning america) quote

As mentioned in the edit summary, the quote is an exaggeration. As editors, we don't make judgements on popularity, as that would be WP:SYN on the part of us editors.Curb Chain (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be interesting to see what others think. I feel the quote should be restored, as does user User:A1candidate. The rationale is that we as editors are not pushing the actual viewpoint, we are simply stating that a major news organization has made such a comment, and that is indeed a cited fact. We are therein strictly leaving it up to the reader whether to make the determination that this demonstrates the power and impact of this phenomenon. Castncoot (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being an exaggeration, by itself, does not automatically qualify for something to be excluded from Wikipedia, does it? I swear I've seen countless of claims and opinions, some bordering on the impossible, being quoted by countless Wikipedia editors. Just take a look at articles like Out-of-body experience, Energy medicine, 2012 phenomenon, etc. A quote by an established broadcasting coporation like ABC News seems more than harmless to me, in this respect.

Although Im new to Wikipedia, I have just read through the entire WP:SYN and it seems to me that original synthesis only applies when something new is added, which is not mentioned specifically by any source. And think about it, how is it possible for a quote to be original synthesis when it is, by defintion, a quote?

Even if this quote is slightly exagerrated, the fact is that other established newspapers like the Financial Times have said almost the same thing. I think removing the quote would lead to the reader not fully understanding what the mainstream media thinks about "Gangnam Style" -A1candidate (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the quote soon if nobody has any strong objections -A1candidate (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a consensus for restoration here, will restore the quote. Castncoot (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At which point in the video does it exactly say those words you quoted (in the quote box)? Secondly, you are using pushing WP:POV to give undue weight to this quote because

  1. it is a major newspaper, which is using WP:SYN by editors to determine it is a major newspaper
  2. you are pulling this quote out of a number of different sentences spoken in the video
  3. you are giving undue weight to this quote because you are deliberately putting it in its own box, out of context, to HIGHLIGHT this quote.Curb Chain (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ABC News is a broadcasting network, not a newspaper.
  2. 3:15 - 3:20, male reporter on the left
  3. Only applies if a view held by a small minority. In this case, ABC News isn't by far the only one holding this view. (See above)

-A1candidate (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be RfC. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to close this case out at this time, in my humble opinion - there appears to be a good consensus for maintaining the quote. Castncoot (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer TransporterMan brings up a good point - he feels that the placement of the quote would be valid with the exception that the reporter is stating "intrawebs" rather than "internet", if you listen carefully. TransporterMan is correct about that. This volunteer then expresses the opinion that the use of the word intrawebs could be potentially distracting - on this point I disagree, because people are familiar with this term (which is actually Wiki-linkable), and the quote still conveys the same theme; therefore, respectfully, I will correct the quote itself. Castncoot (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it seems unfair to remove a quote just because it was quoted as "Internet" instead of "Intraweb", the point of the quote is that the song is extremely popular in many places around the world, (an opinion that is supported by countless respectable newspapers/broadcasting networks), and the fine differences between "Internet" and "Intrawebs" appear somewhat trivial to me. Of course, it should still be correctly quoted as "Intrawebs" -A1candidate (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may well need to be kicked back to the talk page for further discussion. I failed to notice that there doesn't appear to be extensive discussion. Since another volunteer has commented at the DR/N it will not be closed immediatly however, failure to use the DR/N filing in good faith to work out this dispute and continued discussion here may result in the filing being closed for a lack of participation. If this is close to being resolved please continue here or the DR/N to collaborate. The most important issue is the content dispute and resolving it. If this can be done here we do not need the filing. If the filing is to remain open please discuss this further with the volunteer at[1]. Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of the graphic in the timeline

While it isnt the best chart out there, the purpose is to show how the video got viral when it was originally not known in the United States. The graphic is not there to point out the song's every success, but rather, to document the critical moments that happened a month after it was uploaded (This is my explanation to those who feel that the graphic is outdated and should therefore be removed) -A1candidate (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

I don't know how to do this, so can somebody archive the references in the charts performance table for future verifiability? Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for second opinion

Recently, Gangnam Style was mentioned by a reporter during a U.S. State Department briefing, and I've uploaded a video clip of it to commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gangnam_Style_US_State_Department.ogv

Does anyone think it would be appropriate to include this in "Gangnam Style"'s article? (An honest question from someone who doesnt' have much experience as an WP editor) -A1candidate (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You already added it. Teammm TM 18:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im asking about the video clip, not the text. Does anyone have objections to the text being placed at the front of the article? -A1candidate (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Add the video as a reference. It's unneeded in the article. And that doesn't belong in the lead of the article. Teammm TM 18:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a video of this should be added or not is debatable, but the text should, in any case be included in the lead-in because this could be an excellent point to catch the reader's attention, in my humble opinion -A1candidate (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it in the lead gives undue weight to an event that is really insignificant. The lead already summarizes the attention the song has garnered around the world and in the media. It should go into the article alone. Teammm TM 20:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I feel that a public comment by a US government official about a particular song is by no means insignificant, I agree that the lead-in is already a good summary and does not require further expansion, the text should go into the article.
Back to my original question now, does the video deserve to be included? (Its difficult to just put it as a reference, I think the context should be explained too). Would like to know what other editors think. Maybe just include the text alone and take out the video? -A1candidate (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the video of the remark that is notable or the remark itself? And is it important in the context of WP:NOTNEWS? AngusWOOF (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of WP:NOTNEWS, the video wont be notable, its the remark itself that is notable because its mentioned by other news sources, and it is also very unusual (and therefore notable), for a pop song to be mentioned during a U.S. State Department press conference. So I included the text but left out the video -A1candidate (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More work to do

OK, here are the areas that need to improve before this article can be considered complete:

  • the Reception section should include more comments from music critics.
  • the Background should be expanded to include inspirations from which Psy and his team drew prior to working on the song. It should be expanded to include how the song was released -- when, where, and with which medium (CD, digital download, etc)
  • the Music video section should include how it was filmed, how long the filming took, if there were any highlights during the filming.
  • a music and lyrical interpretation section should also be added if references permit.
  • a table of certifications (gold, platinum, etc) should be added.

Information can be found in foreign-language Gangnam Style articles.

So far, everyone has done an great job covering the impact and popular culture aspect of the song --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone and MTV interview articles said that filming took 48 hours straight, and who were actors and who were just bystanders who got into the action (the tour bus). Those are some good places to start for researching how they chose the actions for the scenes. Also the "Making of" video has some good outtakes. And the Lady Gaga mention reference can be pushed out the footnotes. AngusWOOF (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. We don't know what date the filming took place, but that's alright. FWIW I'm using other music articles (Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) and Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)) as yardsticks for the development of this article. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this American wikipedia? Sure looks like it...

Comes as no surprise that most of the references in this wiki is based in the U.S. Wikipedia should just rename itself Americapedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.55.113 (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come back when you've got a constructive comment to make. Or, try finding non-American sources that contain information that aren't already covered in these American sources. Otherwise, I've got a video you can watch. Take care --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian entry?

Apparently this song has charted number 1 in Latvia, just as France has SNEP, and Germany has Media Control AG what's the name of the latvian chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azure4arceus (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has topped China, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Philippines & Thailand too, but I don't know how to source for the chart data, although I do have the sources to back me up. ZephyrWind (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Charts

Using Wikipedia:Record charts#Billboard charts, it appears that all four of the current Billboard charts used are correctly included. The page is a guideline. Ryan Vesey 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The song has climbed up most of the charts steadily and there is little to indicate that it would fail to do so in the near future. If the song doesn't reach top 10 within a few weeks, it might make sense to remove it, but until then, I think the charts should be given a chance to stay, in my humble opinion. -A1candidate (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the guideline, it doesn't even seem like the song needs to make the top 10. Ryan Vesey 21:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and Production credits

Can someone affirm the way that Psy's writing, direction, and production credits are displayed on the single? AngusWOOF (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction Vandalism

""Gangnam Style" has been highly praised for its catchy beat and Psy's humorous dance moves in the music video and nipples live performances."

Please remove "nipples" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.169.107 (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 October 2012

From the article:

{{pp-protected|expiry=2012-10-17T21:54:ic36Z|small=yes}}

This yields the following tooltip:

This article is semi-protected until Error: Invalid time..

I don't know what the intended time is (that exact timestamp format isn't familiar to me, I think it contains some timezone data), but I do know that it shouldn't look like this. 81.232.114.228 (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After digging around a little more, I found the expiry and the desired format. The desired modification is:
Remove: {{pp-protected|expiry=2012-10-17T21:54:ic36Z|small=yes}}
Add:       {{pp-protected|expiry=2012-10-17T21:54:36Z|small=yes}}
--81.232.114.228 (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done RudolfRed (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West Indies team did Gangnam Style during the 2012 ICC world T20 tournament which they won

They did it after every wicket during the final and at the end of the match the whole team did it like crazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.181.34 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than 1 chart per country

Please can we not add more than one chart per country, in the case that this song is korean and both k-pop hot 100 and gaon are official, can we not keep adding multiple charts from countries like Venezuela top 200 and pop rock, or spanish singles and spanish air play chart, as surely the more relevant information is the main chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azure4arceus (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple chart listing from the same country are only discouraged if they are from the same provider. Otherwise charts like the Mexican Airplay from Billboard and Monitor Latino are both allowed because they are not from the same provider and they are independent from each other. Same thing with the South Korean charts. Erick (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks :D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.239.212.135 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Should a small table describing the song's reception in a few selected foreign countries be included, or would it be better to remove the table and just integrate its contents into the text? Should the reception in a few selected foreign countries even be included in the main article in the first place? -A1candidate (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific on what you're talking about. Are you talking about the charts? Erick (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not the charts, see Reception (Old version). I know the full table doesn't belong here, but I was wondering if anyone thinks its okay to include a small selection of important countries in the main article. Or should its contents be integrated into the text instead? -A1candidate (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that, yeah I agree with you. There's no need for reception sections to have a table.

Update frequency

I think every time the viewcounter increases by 2 million or more, anyone else's thoughts? 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the video has generated 10 million views daily, do we really need an update 1-2 million views? AngusWOOF (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the views should be rounded off -A1candidate (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to publish an update whenever a news source mentions the newest number of views. AngusWOOF (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be a massive pain I think. Googling news sources to update. 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gangnam_Style&oldid=516867728"