Jump to content

Talk:Tik Tok (song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Parody

Does anyone think this parody should be included in this article? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7n8GqewJ2M. It's by the internet group "key of awesome" which is a subset of the well known "barely political", the group who brought us Obama girl. If you type in Kesha in youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7n8GqewJ2M) you can see that the parody has 22.5 million views whereas the official video has only ~16.5 million. It's also the groups most popular parody by far and is listed as "popular" by youtube. Here is their videos page http://www.youtube.com/show?p=zEb34z_jyv0.

In my opinion it is a really well done video (high production quality) and is highly comical. It'll probably be one of those internet videos that people still watch years from now and with 22.5 million views definitely should be included in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisscrewball (talk • contribs) 11:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the idea but next time please start the discussion at the bottom of the page. As for the parody it should not be included. It use to be included in the article but i removed it due to lack of reliable sources. There isnt enough coverage on the parody to be included. ..:CK:.. (talk2me) 19:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You might start watching now to see if there is any year-end coverage of the fact that YouTube included the Key of Awesome parody in its year-end review and observed (within the review) that the parody had more views than the official video of the song. Lawikitejana (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What about including the following parody by College Humor? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JelGcEyS6Aw —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTGD (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I'm not sure how this is considered unintended vandalism, not only have the references been fixed (there was a lot of duplicate references), it looks much neater than it was. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want a reason. 155.69.192.212 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You actually removed all the sources next to the chart names in the table which goes against the formatting used in WP:CHARTS where you also removed the line break between peak position, unnecessarily altered writing and inspiration, put things in there that obviously don't belong, removed almost all of the critical reception with no legitimate purpose and included an entirely unsourced description of the music video. • вяαdcяochat 06:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The piece of Weiner was a blog article, which isn't accepted if I'm not wrong, a reference to an article from a BBC blog was removed, so that doesn't belong there (or the BBC thing should be allowed). Besides the Weiner piece isn't a review of the song itself, but an opinion piece on current pop music and its indie influence. About the chart positions and music video things, fair enough. I changed the heading to writing and inspiration to incorporate the places where the song was used in the media since that line doesn't really belong in the lead. Anyway, that's just my take on it, thanks for the prompt reply. 155.69.192.212 (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived 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

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.

"Right Round" is shown as Kesha's single? INVITATION to discussion.

"Right Round" is shown as Kesha's single in the infobox at "Kesha singles chronology"? She is a featured artist but she did not release the song. There is an ongoing discussion of this type of issue at Chronologies in infoboxes for songs with a featured artist so I thought those here might be interested in participating. Please for completeness of discussion post all comments there.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Succession

? Why did you guys delete the succession table? o_O —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookblade19 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. It wasn't my aim to delete it. I was restoring things after discovering vandalism and just didn't restore that section. Re-ADD it if you wish. It is since that I oppose them, so shouldn't do so myself. PLEASE participate in the discussion regarding Succession boxes HERE.
For completeness of discussion please make any comments there. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


"Stylized as 'TiK ToK'"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was page moved.  Skomorokh  10:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tik Tok (song) → TiK ToK —

Please revert this nonsense back to the way it was. The ONLY place I have seen the song's title written "Tik Tok" is on this article. All promotional materials, digital music retailers, and news media write the song title with the K's capitalized. Why does Wikipedia need to be the only place where it's written 'properly'? I mean, seriously, the words in the title are spelled incorrectly as it is... 24.107.148.147 (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. See [1], the official website, for an example. Adabow (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well. If Lady Gaga's "LoveGame" is allowed to be in CamelCase, then there is no reason this song shouldn't. Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I do agree, but last month, another user notified me that doing so does not comply with Wikipedia:MOSTM and that LoveGame is a legitimate case of CamelCase because it is two seperate words with the removal of a space. "TiK ToK" is stylised that way for stylistic or artistic purposes. • вяαdcяochat 23:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Explanation of move

Per MOS:TM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'" Why I moved this back despite consensus. Chase wc91 06:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What a stupid rule... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkuy (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you Tikkuy, but I am afraid that we are going to have to live with it because it is a policy of Wikipedia. • вяαdcяochat 10:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of you guys but I feel that keeping it as it is at present (ie as "Tik Tok") seems fine and looks professional also. Inserting the capital K's and $ in Kesha really made the pages look like fan-site. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add that MOS:TM is not a policy and is only a guideline that states: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." But if the Time article doesn't use it, then a song probably shouldn't either. However, wouldn't it make (logical and common) sense to include (trademarked as "TiK ToK") and make the redirect point to the article and not the disambiguation page? Also, maybe add this to the top the "Tik Tok" article:
{{redirect|TiK ToK||Tik Tok (disambiguation)}} Thanks. —Mike Allen 04:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: After reading more of the MOS:TM, wouldn't this qualify as CamelCase? —Mike Allen 04:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this constitutes an exception. MOS:TM says plain and simple, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'." This is the perfect example. "TiK ToK" is the official title but "Tik Tok" complies with proper capitalization rules. MOS may only be a guideline but it is in place to keep our articles consistent which is why going against it should only occur when necessary. "Tik tok" should not get its own disambiguation page as it is an alternate spelling of "Tick tock," and "TiK ToK" redirects to the disambiguation because it is alternate capitalization/stylization.
In addition, I'm fine with not acknowledging that the official title is "TiK ToK" in this article, because the only difference is two uppercase letters. This isn't like Kesha (Ke$ha) or Pink (P!nk) where symbols are used to stylize their names, it's just capital letters. And also, this wouldn't be considered CamelCase. "TikTok" would be, but not this. Chase wc91 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes because people that are typing TiK ToK are really looking for a disambiguation page. I don't see anything wrong with redirecting to the right page. Btw it's "considered" StudlyCaps, which is a variation of CamelCase, but that's beside the newfound point. Also, personally I don't like how a consensus was reached and then you just come in and revert it back prior to when it was reached, without discussing it until after the fact. That's not right. —Mike Allen 04:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) I have no doubt that people are looking for this article when they type in "TiK ToK." However, Tik tok redirects to Tick tock and thus this should too. I have previously explained that I moved this back despite consensus because of MOS:TM. IMO, policies/guidelines > consensus in most cases. Consensus was to go against a guideline just because we're the only place who stylizes the song's title as "Tik Tok." That's not how we do things here. Chase wc91 04:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see it's redirecting everywhere and anywhere, but the article. Oh, and I am clearly seeing how you do things here. How do you think the MOS guidelines (not policy) got there in the first place? Per a consensus. Your failed logic of consensus going against guidelines is severely flawed. I would be bold and do this myself, but you are not worth getting a 3RR block. I'll save that for something worthwhile. Thank you. —Mike Allen 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The MOS guidelines even state that they should not be went against unless absolutely necessary. They are in place for a reason, so that our articles can maintain consistency, they are not just little "suggestions" that you can pick and choose when you feel like it. No. Consensus here was obviously flawed, there was no real reason except that we were the only place not referring to it by its proper title. It went against our guidelines for the sake of conforming to other publications, and that's not how our MOS works.
If you still have a problem with this, I suggest you take it up at WT:MOSTM because arguing with me is not going to change the fact that MOS states to use standard formatting even if nonstandard is official, and this is the guideline currently in place. Don't like it, gain consensus there. Here is not the place to do so. Chase wc91 04:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Not that this may specifically relate to the issue between both of you in terms of guidelines and all, but notable coverage of this particular song including that of Billboard and The New York Times have stylised the name of the song as "TiK ToK" in their articles. • вяαdcяochat 14:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Well yeah, it's stylized like that pretty much everywhere; it is the official name of the song after all. I personally wouldn't mind it being at TiK ToK but the MOS policies prevent us from using nonstandard formatting even if it's official. Chase wc91 21:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there was a consensus then to WP:IAR.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

IAR should only be applied when ignoring the rules leads to improvement of the article. The changing of the article's title hardly makes a difference. Chase wc91 01:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not the case that the nonstandard style is used "pretty much everywhere" or even close to that. Here's a Google news search for reference: [2]. Some sources do use the nonstandard formatting, but many, and almost all of the most reliable ones, use "Tik Tok." Croctotheface (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the discussion was taken to here. —Mike Allen 05:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

RIAA certification

I notice that there's a source in the article saying that this song was certified 2x Platinum, however the RIAA database knows nothing about that. What's going on?
Amalthea 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Overzealous fans is a possibility. Remove. —Mike Allen 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
That would normally have been my first reaction, but the source does look reliable, and I've also found another song where the source claiming Platinum certification was universalmusic.com, thus I assume reliable as well, but RIAA doesn't give any results there either. I never noticed before that their database is lagging particularly far behind, but ...
Amalthea 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see "TiK ToK" listed on that site. —Mike Allen 00:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Is the website myxph.com used regularly as a source? I just question the reliability of that site. I personally would wait until the RIAA site updated and/or a well-known reliable site is found. —Mike Allen 00:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Not particularly often, no, see Special:LinkSearch/*.myxph.com. It's the webpage of the Philippine music channel myx. Amalthea 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've removed it. I can find no confirmation in a clearly reliable source. The RIAA database, although a primary source for this, is probably still the most reliable one. Thanks, Amalthea 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Billboard have published an article stating that the song has sold 2.44 million total downloads. Whether we should wait for RIAA to update their database, I am not perfectly sure but here is the source. • вяαdcяochat 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm I supposed the Billboard is a reliable source. I say add it back in the table. Also is it common to have the table "Chart procession and succession" on song articles? —Mike Allen 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
If the song has topped the charts of any major music market, then yes it is common to have a "Chart procession and succession" table/box. I will work on getting the RIAA certification back in the table. Cheers ;) • вяαdcяochat 22:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh it seems a little "chunky" to have 5 tables/templates on top of each other, IMO. Couldn't some of it be converted to prose? I'm not familiar with the Music Project, perhaps this is acceptable. The Film Project would shit if a film article had so many tables on top of one another. LOL —Mike Allen 23:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To Mike Allen and anyone else interested to comment regarding the use of "Chart procession and succession" in music articles. You are welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Succession boxes, are they effectively 'affiliate advertising'?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the song sold more than two million copies doesn't mean is certified. The record label have to request the certification to the RIAA, is very common now for songs not to receive a certification or to receive one for much less than they actually sold, for example "Poker Face" is not certified in the U.S., and is reported by Nielsen that it sold more than 4.5 million paid digital downloads. Another example is "Bleeding Love", it is certified platinum in the U.S. but it sold more than 3 million. We should wait for the RIAA to list it in their webpage, I believe the information could be added to the prose in the chart performance section.Frcm1988 (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much. You have been a real help Frcm ;) • вяαdcяochat 11:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem, happy to help. Frcm1988 (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Music video, Barry.

I know I know, useless fact, but Barry is in fact the car @1.12 mark, not Simon Rex. It was a gift to her from Barry Weiss after signing her to RCA. 155.69.192.75 (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. YouTube can not be used as a source, because videos can be taken down at anytime. We need something reliable, stable and published to verify. • вяαdcяochat 03:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Nah, it's OK, I know that, I just thought that line in the music video could be removed. :) 155.69.192.75 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a reader and not a regular editor, I was frustrated to find "Barry" mentioned without any indication of who or what Barry is. If you're just waiting to find a source, I'm sure it will be added in good time. If I could, I'd provide a source rather than complain, but I don't know who Barry is myself. Best regards. 208.119.151.49 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on blog sources.

Bradcro believes that the Slate magazine blog post and the New York Post blog post should be retained on the basis that they are published sources. The magazine and tabloid themselves may be, but the sources used are explictly from the blog sections of these websites, it even says so in their URLs) and similar sources have been removed from related articles without question. (i.e. blog section of The Tennessean, Nashville's biggest newspaper, from the Kesha article and a Los Angeles Times interview from its blog section from Animal article and if I recall a BBC review was taken down from this article because it was a "blog source") Point being this should not even be up for discussion, but since Bradcro is adamnant, I am making this post. 155.69.192.115 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I know for a fact that a review from some random joe on a site like blogspot.com is unacceptable, but to be honest I'm not too familiar with what can and cannot be used as a source when it comes to blogs from published magazines. After reading the reviews in the article though, I don't think the slate magazine review is really needed; only because there's currently a balance of two positive reviews and two negative reviews without it. With the addition of the slate piece, this turns the number of reviews to 2 positive and 3 negative. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 14:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
ASAIK, this is correct. We are allowed to use blogs from verified sources (not some random blogspot or wordpress blog), such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc. It's acceptable and it stays as far as I'm concerned. Thank you. —Mike Allen 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The New York Post is not equatable to the New York Times, I propose we remove that source while retaining the Slate magazine source. And since that reference has already been proven to be incorrect as seen in one of the above discussions, there is even less reason to keep it. Reference to "Barry" not needed for the section anyway. 155.69.192.101 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but the content regarding Simon Rex appearing in the video should remain. You may remove content regarding Barry though. • вяαdcяochat 03:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Parody

Is a paragraph on this parody appropriate? It has been released at the iTunes Store, so there is a decent ref. Adabow (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Once it charts, which it most probably will in Australia this week, then we may consider including it somehow on the article. Would you happen to have any third party coverage regarding the cover? That may also help. • вяαdcяochat 22:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the iTunes one [3] was the only reliable one I could find. Adabow (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
This one [4] may be useful too. Adabow (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
There is now a WP article, Tik Tok (Parody), as well as one for The Midnight Beast, the band, which may be helpful.

Is there anyone against including this in the article? Adabow (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it is based upon "Tik Tok", it should be at least briefly mentioned with wikilinks to those other pages. It's not just a fan cover or fan parody as it has charted. Thus it is notable.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done at bottom of Critical reception section. Adabow (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone fix the Twitter quotation in the parody section? She didn't write 's++t', she wrote 'shit'. So not only censored, but incorrectly 'sic-ed': http://twitter.com/keshasuxx/status/6676461438

Video filming locations

Could anybody add the missing outdoor filming locations in the 'Music video' section, please? My guesses: 2nd scene (neighboorhood): somewhere in san fernando valley. 3rd, 4th & 5th (pick up, pull over, car ride): Laurel Canyon Blvd (& Hoolywood Blvd?). thx. 188.45.85.183 (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Chart Topping Locations

It says "twelve countries including the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, France, New Zealand and others", Europe is a continent, and isn't France part of Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuape27 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Love At First Sight Copy

Could some one please remove the information about Rohin Guha claiming that Tik Tok is copied from Love At First Sight? I am not registered so I can not but the songs are completely different.

Any one wanting to confirm this: Love At First Sight Goes D# D# D# D# F F# D# D# D# D# F F#

Tik Tok Goes D D D D E E F F F D A D D E E F F F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.64 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Patrolling soldiers dancing incident

The following discussion is an archived 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 No strong consensus (was added to article to avoid another debate)

A few editors have been adding Patrolling soldiers dancing incident to the article. Im reverting this because it has nothing to do with the song. The video itself is whats is causing controversy, no critic has called the song controversial. The song was used in the video without Kesha's permission, so dont add it. Thanks (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 16:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a silly interpretation of WP guidelines and of what this section actually details. Nowhere has it been asserted that the song itself is controversial. Why would it have to? This was the song they happened to dance to and it made headlines worldwide, which makes the connection notable enough for this to be mentioned in this article. The incident may also warrant an article in itself, though I'm not sure that is going to happen. If music articles can mention when a song has been used in this or that movie or television show, this mention is well within acceptable limits. And just a question for you, call it a reality check... Don't you think this story would be of interest to most people who like this song or for some reason should happen to read this article, and do you think they'll be upset that the song didn't feature even more prominently in the tale? And by most people I also include the casual as well as the zealous Wikipedia editor. __meco (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not notable. It has nothing to do with the song, it does not affect the song at all. It was used without Kesha's knowledge or permission. kesha did not ask soldiers to do that etc. People are skewing the information. A massive scetion describing the incident is just not relevant. when a song is used in a movie/show its part of promotion. Every single little event that happens in the world is not noteworthy of independent articles. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
As you said, the song is not controversial, why would it be included in the article, the article is about the song and Kesha, was she involved in the video? no, did they have permission to use the song? no. Like you said also, they could have chosen any song, they just chose to use this one, it has no particular reasoning for the song, it doesnt relate to the song, and its just them dancing, its not controversial. It may have enough coverage to warrent a page i believe, but its not notable in this particular article. And as an interest piece which you asked, no i wouldnt want to read about it if it had nothing to do with kesha, which it doesnt. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Adding that information would be as ridiculous as me saying that "Macy's in New York played 'Tik Tok' at 10am on July 4" or "20 People in the city centre danced as Kesha does outside XYZ club because it was blasting out "Tik Tok". Even if the incidents recieved media coverage they are not notable or remarkable.Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
HAH, exactly. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Whether Kesha authorized this use or not is absolutely irrelevant. Yes, when a song is used in a movie that may very well be for promotion. Does that mean that all uses that are commercial and authorized by the artist and the record company are OK, but if ordinary people just happen to connect with the song and do something that attracts international attention and media headlines across the globe – without the consent of the copyright holder, then that is inadmissible for mention in the Wikipedia article? Is Wikipedia ruled by what artists and industry approve of? In my view you reasoning is utterly nonsensical and non-sequiturial. As I cannot be bothered getting into an edit war over a humorous little incident, I won't revert you, but simply place a copy of the massive section here so that other users can add their .5 .

==Patrolling soldiers dancing incident==
Six young Israeli soldiers from the Nahal Brigade danced to the song during a patrol while they were enforcing the curfew in the Palestinian occupied West Bank town of Hebron. This was documented in a YouTube video titled "Batallion 50 Rock the Hebron Casbah". In the video the six are seen walking in formation in a deserted street armed with guns and in full battle gear. In the background a prayer call can be heard. Suddenly the soldiers break out in a choreographed dance routine to the sound of "Tik Tok". After about half a minute the soldiers skip along holding hands in pairs and then resume normal patrol. As reactions to the video, which was posted on YouTube in early July 2010, started to surface in the media, the original video was removed, however several people have re-uploaded it. Early newspaper reports asserted that the soldiers would face disciplinary action for their stunt, however the Israeli army later announced that no action would be taken because the soldiers were "just fooling around and no harm was done."<ref>{{Cite news |title= Dancing Dispute: Soldiers stir controversy online |url= http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=180674 |work= [[Jerusalem Post]] |date= July 7, 2010 |accessdate= July 7, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title= Israeli soldiers escape 'dance routine' penalty |url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10528301.stm |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= July 6, 2010 |accessdate= July 7, 2010}}</ref>

__meco (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your not understanding this. The video is controversial because of what they are doing, it has NOTHING to do with the song, they could have danced to any song and it would have been controversial still. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes ^ that is the issue exactly. The event is controversial because it is unexpected and non-standard behaviour for soldiers. The choice to use this song was arbitory and nothing to with Kesha or Tik Tok. The event would be no more/less controversial if they had chosen Rihanna, Cheryl Cole or Taio Cruz. Again I pose to you the question "if a man requested that a hospital to put Tik Tok on whilst his wife gives birth" would that be notable? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be condescending, but I'm having a discussion with two editors named "L-l-CLK-l-l" and "Lil-unique1". I can see that I had phrased the beginning of the section in such a way that the narrative was built up to present itself as exceedingly trivial. It should obviously have started something along the line of: "The song became a key element in a controversial incident in the Palestinian town of Hebron involving a group of patrolling Israeli soldiers..." Unfortunately perhaps, had it been phrased that way I wouldn't be facing questions of the hypothetical notability for inclusion into the article if a would-be nondescript man requested to have the song played during the giving birth by his wife. I gather most editors would have been able to connect the dots in a somewhat logical manner to see the connectedness of the various elements here. As it were L-l-CLK-l-l and Lil-unique1 came before most editors and took prompt corrective action. __meco (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Even if you had originally presented it in that way i would have till contested it for reasons stated above. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 18:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe it deserves mention. Just as any notable event relating to a song deserves mention on the song's page. This is a story, related in papers around the world, all of which mention the song. The video w/the music had nearly 2 million hits in a few days. What size that mention should be is an issue that can be debated, but inasmuch as all the stories about the incident mention the specific song, and those stories are world-wide, it's appropriate to have some mention of it at the song page. The entire incident's notablity is reflected in the above, adn it is about to be listed on wikipedia's main page.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've cut down the mention of this second parody to one sentence, and taken away its header, and put it w/the other parody under a Parody heading. The song is mentioned in stories about the incident around the globe, and "Tick Tock" (misspelled) is even part of the video's name. A mere one sentence seems eminently appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Update: Wikipedia's main page right now reflects the following "Did You Know" -- "... that six Israeli soldiers may face disciplinary action for filming a viral dance video called IDF Tick Tock?"--Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesnt matter, for the reasons stated above its not to be added. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really commenting on the matter, but I don't think the Israeli soldier thing comes under parodies. Fixer23 (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Im going to try to explain this again. The video of soldiers dancing is controversial. The video may use the song as the background but the song is not controversial, the video is. Controversy would be a critic or newspaper commenting on the song for its lyrics, music video, message or an authorized use in a commercial or something. This is not the case. I prose the question if i made a video and posted it on youtube using tik tok as the background criticizing someone of high power, (lets say the queen of england) then i would be the target of critique(controversy), not the song. If it made national headlines of people critiquing me then i would be in trouble, not the song. Does this made sense? The incident itself has its own wiki page now, it doesnt need inclusion on this page. It can be metioned there (maybe) but not here. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

@Fixer -- OK. I'm open to the use of another phrase. What would you suggest?

@Lakeshade LilUnique. I will explain further.

  1. The use of the music in the video is highly notable. This is mentioned in many article, from all around the world. The articles are RSs. This is our measure of notability.
  2. It is not necessary that the music be controversial, as has already been clearly pointed out to you above. The reasons for this have also already been pointed out to you. If Liza Minelli's version of New York, New York is played in Yankees Stadium after certain games, that is notable and worth reflecting -- even if she had nothing to do with the Yankes or baseball.
  3. You are simply reverting others, in an edit warrior fashion, saying: I said x, so that is the case.
  4. I've read your complaints, and in reaction have limited the mention of the song in the video to one sentence. Yet you still keep on deleting it. Rather than compromising, you are heavy handedly deleting a relevant mention supported by many RS sources.
  5. You admit that a number of editors have a different view, in your very first post above. Yet you keep on ignoring them.
  6. You argue that the fact that the song was used without the singer's permission (likely, though I see no support for that in the RSs), is reason to delete its mention. It is not. The measure for notability is coverage in RSs. That we have. Your point is irrelevant to notability.
  7. You continuously miss the point that the massive international RS coverage distinguishes this from non-notable use of the song. Even your continued counter-examples reflect this misunderstanding. As when you say "if a man requested that a hospital to put Tik Tok on whilst his wife gives birth" would that be notable?" The answer is -- it depends on the RS coverage. In your example, without more, of course not. If the article were about the doctors pulling the baby out, in synchronized fashion, to the beat of Tik Tok -- and the story were covered in dozens of RSs all over the world, to that effect -- then of course yes.

You are entitled to your views. But they are based on misunderstandings of policy, ignoring views of others. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Epeefleche

Disagree... people at this article are not interested in the behaviour of Isreali soldiers. You've misunderstood the connection between the notability of the incident and this song. The only reason this event is even mentioned on this page is because the song was used in the background. The artist did not request or know that it was going to happen. It is not notable for extensive coverage in the same way that "if my girlfriend requestion doctors to play the song while she gave birth" would not be notable even if it was covered by RS because its connection the subject of this song is only by association and not by content. I've used the example before but if "Macy's in New York used the song in a promo campaign" that would be notable. But "Macy's playing the song on July 13 at 10 Am" is not notable --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You two Ls continue to say curious things. First, your assertion as to what "people at this article" are interested in -- that's off-base in a few manners. I don't know what you mean by "at this article". But wp policy is not limited, if this is what you are getting at, to the interests of editors who edit the article. Nor do you have an indication that they editors of this article have a disinterest in the entry -- just the opposite, on this page. In addition, wp policy and practice support the one-sentence bare mention that the two Ls continue to revert. Furthermore, it matters not a whit whether the artist requested it or knew it was not going to happen. You are failing to read the above posts of others who disagree with the two of you.

It is covered by RS papers, as well as TV, world-wide, with the song featured prominently in each and every such story. If Macy's were to play the song on July 13 at 10AM, and if RSs were to all cover that, around the world, across the continents, in dozens of RS newspapers and blogs and TV mentions -- that would be notable. That objective measure is what we use for notability. You and the other L keep on ignoring it, making for some reason the same (respectfully) off-base comments. But it is by using this objective measure of notability that we avoid issues where one editor (or two) have a POV that something isn't notable, which is limited to their POV -- instead, what we do is rely on RS mentions, which is objective.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The RS papers note the incident. They do not assert why the incident is relevant to the song. The issue is not reliable source nor is this a POV issue. A simple statement such as The song was also used in an incident involving Israeli solders whereby the soldiers performed a choreographed dance to the song whilst on duty would suffice. When I say 'people at this article' I mean the general public who read the article are doing so to find out about Tik Tok, the primary subject. The primary subject of the incident in question is about the behaviour of Israeli soldiers and NOT Tik Tok. Therefore the behaviour of soldiers is not a primary concern or event for this article, the use of the song is. Therefore a simple statement about the use of the song in such incident is sufficient. P.s. I don't really care for this article much other than I carried out an early GA for it. My comments are based on assessing what encylopedic value it adds to the article. At the end of the day even RS cotent is rejected if it cannot be notably attributed as encyclopedic content. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What is at issue (most recently) is the continued deletion of what is only one sentence mention of the incident. Which, in its most recent incarnation, heavily footnoted, said:

Israeli soldiers created IDF Tick Tock in 2010, a viral dance video that opens with six infantry soldiers on patrol in Hebron, walking cautiously down a deserted street, armed and wearing full combat gear, when suddenly Tik Tok music breaks in, and the soldiers break into choreographed dance moves.

--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You just said it right there, they are commenting on the VIDEO as controversial. Do they say "wow, tik tok is so controversial, look at the lyrics"? no they dont. Do they say "wow, look at what Kesha approved of in this video, how could she cupport something like this?". No they dont. They song is not controversial the video is. So it has no need for mention here. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 18:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand. There is no "is the song controversial" test. There isn't even a "is the video controversial" test, for that matter. That is all an irrelevant red herring. The same as it would be in the above Liza Minelli song example I gave you. The same with the "did she approve it" issue, that is only one in your mind, and not in anyone else's. That's another irrelevant red herring, as has been pointed out to you earlier in this string.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, ignoring the "controversy" thing. I can and am going to argue the same thing. Does the video deal with the song? Somewhat, the video itself and what is causing such a buzz is the fact that the soldiers are dancing. It still doesnt have anything to do with the song. Show me a statement where a reviewer strictly refers to Tik Tok as controversial, or something along those lines. This page is about Kesha and the song. The video is not about the song, its about soldiers dancing. Why would it warrant a mention here? You keep saying because the song is used in the video it should be mentioned. I argue that because the song is not the center issue. It has nothing to do with Kesha or the song. On another note, the incident itself has its own page now, so why does it need to be mentioned here? answer, it doesnt. Truthfully i dont know why you are persisting this so heavily as it doesnt drastically change the article and i have no intention of backing down, i will argue this for months if needed. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the IDF dancing incident be discussed in this article?

Is it appropriate to include a mention in this article of the filmed incident where a group of Israeli soldiers on patrol on the West Bank performed a choreographed dance routine to "Tik Tok", an incident which is covered in the article IDF Tick Tock? meco (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No- Im adding this encase people dont want to read all discussion above. The video is controversial because of what the soldiers are doing, not the song or Kesha herself. The video made international headlines because of what the soldiers are doing, in all the citations given no-one mention the song as controversial, or Kesha for that matter. They only mention the video for the simple fact that the soldiers are out of normal formation and dancing. No critic comments on the song, if they do all they basically say is they were dancing to it, they in no way call the song controversial or anything along those lines. For those reasons i strongly feel the video should not be included in this article. It has its own article anyway. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
NO - im saying this to clarify the comments made above (as it appears my comments were not clear). I do NOT think this information should be added because the incident is only related to the article by coincidental association. The controversy caused by the incident itself was due to the behaviour to of soldiers and not to the song therefore this info doesnt belong on this page. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment - The Thriller (song) article does not mention Thriller (viral video) in its prose, however it does mention it in the "See also" section, so maybe the same could be used for this. Candyo32 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I agree that it could be included in See also. Fixer23 (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Im all for including it in See Also (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 23:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a problem. Pop it in there. The issue is WP:Relevance and I see a clear connection. I wouldn't have a problem with the Thriller viral video being linked either.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. For the reasons elaborated at length in the above strings, the shortened one-sentence mention is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • At most in the See also section; doesn't deserve any more than that, since it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. It amazes me there's even an article to link to there. I don't understand why it hasn't been deleted yet. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • comment, I didn't realise that the event had its own page. In light of that I am in agreement with John's comment above and I have also nominated the page for deletion. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Disagree, at most it should be under see also, no sentence, just a link. It is irrelevant to add 'trivia' section to all song articles that are used elsewhere. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. Some songs attract many people to imitate, parody, or dance to them. Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) has a section entitled Cultural impact detailing many instances of people imitating the dance, or filming themselves dancing like Beyoncé to the tune. This no different. Probably should be in a Cultural Impact subsection.AMuseo (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
For reasons stated above this is trivia. Its a group of soldiers dancing, it does not relate to the song. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you asserting that this isn't cultural impact, that it is mere trivia? Or are you asserting that cultural impact is an aspect which is non-notable in itself? __meco (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Im asserting the fact that this viral video does not in any way warrant a mention here, im willing to bend to put this way prolonged discussion to an end, meaning if the article survives the AFD discussion then it should go under see also(no sentence, just a link to the page) , i still dont believe it is at all relevant to this article though. I could argue this over and over, i fail to see the relevance regarding the video, it does not effect the songs commercial use, or kesha. The video itself does not in anyway assert cultural impact, and the video is somewhat trivial, it would be the same thing if someone made a joke about Tik Tok like on family guy or something that made headlines, family guy would be the target of controversy or media attention, not the song. This is the exsact same case with the video, is does not assest notability in THIS article. It does though in its own article. Over and over the same issue is being argued and i have yet to see a valid reason for this being included in the article, unless its provided i will continue to argue this, im not gunna back down, we will just have to agree to disagree. Can we agree upon adding it to see also? (if the article survives that is) or maybe even at the top like i have for "This article is about the Kesha song. For the Lemar song, see Tick Tock (song)." (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 07:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course it will survive AfD -- now that it is getting wider input from the community, and not being subjected to a filibuster. And the AfD discussion in revealing, as it evidences quite starkly just how non-consensus the filibusterites' "non-notable" views are here. And of course not only should this be in the article for all the aforesaid reason, but it is "see also 101" that see also's are best accompanied by an explanatory sentence ... this POV-filibustering-censorship effort is as "off" as the AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Watch your wording, that is clearly directed at lil-unique and myself and i dont appreciate that, we are entitled to our own opinion, just as you are. That aside are we in agreement that it should be added to a see also section? (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 07:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. And inasmuch as we have no age limits here, it matters not that both of you are below the age of majority. But filibustering is not generally thought to be a good thing, and IMHO that is the nature of what has gone on here. The AfD, with massive rejection of the "not notable" view that the two of you have presented, is instructive to me as to the weight to be given your non-consensus view. While you are entitled to your opinion, there are wp rules that are of moment and should be abided by. I see an overwhelming consensus at the AfD that the video is notable. And a consensus here that reflecting it in the article is appropriate. Your view, while you are entitled to have it, is non-consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
My age has nothing to do with it, get over yourself. Im very aware of the rules and guidelines and i see nothing in them that would make this event assert notability in THIS article. Please provide my with a valid reason why a video not directly involving the song would be notable and warrant a mention? (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 07:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's been explained many times, at length, above. If you refuse to agree, that's fine. And yes; 16-year-olds are allowed to express views here as well. As at the AfD, I think the consensus reflects a view that you don't agree with. Which is fine. I'll stick with the consensus view.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
What is your issue with me? Continually calling my age into play is completely uncalled for. Also the AFD, i had nothing to do with, i support the article being kept, so dont talk for me, im perfectly capable of expression my own vote/opinion/ so thanks anyways. And no, it has not "been explained many times, at length, above". The issue is being continually deflected. Show me a reason (actual written rule) explaining why this particular video warrants a mention here when it doesnt involve the song or kesha. That is my issue. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 08:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As I said in my talk page, this doesnot seem notable enough at all. Epeefleche, please assume good faith in your comments. LICLK11's age has no fucking business with you. There you go. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. Having brought on this RfC I should present my opinion expressly. I clearly find the incident relevant for inclusion in this article. I was the editor who introduced this into the article in the first place on July 7. With so many people who have little affinity for this type of music haveing been introduced to this song this way, people who would otherwise never to notice it at all, it seems quite incredulous from my perspective that ingrained fans of this song/it's performer should completely fail in apprehending this connection. __meco (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I still fail to find the relevance regarding a viral video thats about soldiers dancing. The video is causing a internet stir but it has nothing to do with this song article, being used in the video is not the topic of attention, its simply a part of the video, so i continue to argue the relevance. Not all incidents regarding a song warrant a mention (as in this case here). I prose the question "What makes this event so relevant to this article?" I dont want an answer deflecting the question. I want a straight answer not using the following as argued before, "its relevant because its about the song" because that is incorrect, its about the video with the song as a minor, minor aspect of the video, not enough to warrant a mention. I also prose the question if this gets its own section, then does that mean the Simpson's using the song as an opening warrant its own section? Answer : No, because its just something that happened regarding the song, the continual argue of media coverage being sufficient is not the problem, also using view counts is not relevant. If were going to use silly things like that then why not use the fact that the simpsons paraody got like 300 news mentions on google, or this youtube video that has 1.8 million views?. An earlier comment was is this video cultural impact? It in no way asserts cultural impact, its mere trivia. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 08:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Your link is completely unsourced and extremely trivial there by its insufficient evidence. Wikipedia is not news reports. "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Which is the case here. I will state it again, the song is not the center of attention, its simple an minor aspect of the video, not enough to warrant a mention. Its trivial. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The above "not news reports" argument is the same one that failed to gain consensus support at the now-failed AfD. And, as was pointed out there, that quote misleadingly fails to quote as well the sentence that follow it. Which provides context as to what it refers to. It says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." What we are discussing here, as confirmed in the AfD discussion, is quite a different animal, and that out-of-context quote does nothing to suggest that this falls under it, when read in context.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes - After reviewing the above it's fine, this is a huge ado about nothing. If this was about the military unit's page, then there'd be a problem, but this is the song's page, it's appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes and No. You can make good arguments for inclusion or exclusion, however, it needs to be said that Wikipedia often gives popular culture and cultural impact stories more weight than, let's say, a music encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No. In my opinion, this falls under the umbrella of Wikipedia:Recentism. The inclusion of the reference suggests that the author is "editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention". I agree with others above that this can be added in the See Also section.  Amit  ►  15:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. It clearly was notable incident covered by reliable sources. Mention it but very briefly with minimal detail, the soldiers could have used numerous songs so there seems little point in wedging extra information in here. 71.139.18.173 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2010 (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.

Changes required

The following changes need to be made so that the article truly passes MOS --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

General issues

  • Per MOS:QUOTE only quotations of longer than four lines a.k.a. a paragraph of text should be blockquoted. This should be addressed in the writing and inspiration section.
Doesnt directly say that, its a suggestion, in now way says anything shorter cannot be in blockquote
  • Slate Magazine → Slate magazine (the magazine is actually called 'Slate')
  • I know it seems tedius but the US single in the track listing needs a source (so length and general information can be verified)  Done
  • Delink all charts in decade and year end sections bar New Zealand which links to something different to those in the regular charts section.  Done

*Release history should have labels section because the song was released differently around the world.

That im going to argue, its not needed. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Referencing issues

  • Ref [1], New York Times - New York Times (also its published by NY Holdings)  Done
  • Ref [3], Esquire is published by Hearst Corporation  Done
  • Ref [4], Blackbook Magazine → ""The Secret to Ke$ha's #1 Single: Ripping Off Kylie Minogue's 'Love At First Sight'"". Blackbook Magazine. Blackbook Media. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)  Done
  • Ref [5], delink, billboard already linked in ref [79], also missing published in [5].  Done
  • Ref [7], unitalicize non-magazines etc, musicnotes.com → musicnotes.com  Done
  • Ref [9], work is BBC Chart Blog (linked as [[BBC Online|BBC Chart Blog]]), publisher=British Broadcasting Corportation  Done
  • Ref [10], work = Yahoo Music, publisher=Yahoo (per {{citeweb}} don't use Inc, Ltd etc.)
  • Ref [11], unitalicise Digital Spy → it is not a publication  Done
  • Ref [12], only Slate should be italics, the magazine is called 'Slate' not 'Slate Magazine'. Also missing publisher=The Washington Post Company  Done
  • Ref [30], work and publisher should be → work=MTV | publisher=MTV Networks (Viacom)  Done
  • Ref [35], delink yahoo, already linked earlier  Done
  • Ref [38], work is incorrect → work=columbia.co.uk  Done
  • Ref [39], work = MTV Networks, publisher=Viacom, Format = press release
  • Ref [43], unitalicize MTV Buzzworthy  Done
  • Ref [44], publisher= Apple Inc.  Done
  • Ref [49], use {{cite album-notes}} for correct referencing format.
  • Ref [72] and [74], delink International Federation of Phonographic Industry (WP:OVERLINK).  Done
  • Ref [79] delink Billboard for reasons above and remove Inc.  Done
  • Ref [83] does not match ref 44 even though they are both Apple iTunes. Both should follow a standard format listing the same work/publisher. iTunes Store and Apple need linking only once between the two refs.
  • Ref [82], work=news.com |publisher=News Limited
  • Refs [84] - [93], Sony Music Entertainment → Sony Music Entertainment (link added to just one of those refs)
  • Ref [94], delink Digital Spy (already linked earlier), add publisher=Hachette Fillipachi UK  Done
Recommended
  • change {{reflist|2}} (or similar styling) to {{reflist|3}} to produce three columns instead.  Done

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDF Tick Tock. __meco (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tik_Tok_(song)/Archive_1&oldid=1151260655"