Talk:What the Hell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Start

When can me make the article? We have the release dates for several countries, the single cover, a "Background", "Critical Reception" and "Promotion" section. --New divine (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:NALBUMS, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm not sure why you say we have Background, Critical reception, and Promotion sections. Between the Avril Lavigne article and the Goodbye Lullaby article, I can only find two sentences of substantial value related to the song (1. It's a "broad message about freedom" and the least personal of Avril's songs on the new album; and 2. It will be performed New Year's Eve). Despite lacking notability, there is simply not enough information for the song to require its own article at this time. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone reviewed "What the Hell" http://www.rollingstone.com/music/songreviews/what-the-hell-20101229 --New divine (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the bottom line is that we should at least wait until the album itself is released (actually, we're forced to wait that long because that's how long this page is protected for), so by that time, this song might actually obtain some independent notability. We should at the very least wait for it to chart before even considering an article.

And by the way, Ker... Very well said above. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, minus a few silly template errors on my part! Anyway, New Divine, not to reemphasize my earlier point, but RS's one paragraph review isn't going to add any bulk to the article. We can extract a few quotable words from it. There's no doubt the "What the Hell" article will come to fruition in the near future, so if you're willing to keep information on the first single on the Goodbye Lullaby article up-to-date, then you're more than welcome to do so. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The song is already out, was performed live, the single cover is already available, we have informations about it, reviews from critics etc... I think it's time to make the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.2.169.78 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That only confirms that it's a released song; however, it has yet to actually obtain notability as discussed above. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall where I read it, but there is a difference between a promotional release (free download) and the actual release of the single (radio airplay), along with sales of physical copies of the single, if one was made. So saying "it's already out" doesn't hold much water. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Justo one comment, this single has already relased this year. And in a fisical format is the day 6.--Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 22:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The song was released as a free download on her facebook page, the "real" digital release will be on 7 January in the US. We have everything what we need for an article except charts positions. When the song charts somewhere we can make an article, until then we can create the article on someone's sandbox. --Greeneyed soul (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You could, but there's no reason to. Like I said above, there's enough information on this song to fill out about one small paragraph. I would just wait until the song charts, then the article will become unprotected, and a stub of an article will appear in no time :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, but I still made an article on my sandbox. The song will chart in about two weeks and I can not wait two weeks [to see that the song debuted at #1 on the Billboard Hot 100]. --Greeneyed soul (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC) :P

People, look at the What the Hell article in the portuguese wikipedia. It's already a good article! It's time to make it in the english wikipedia. And, Keraunoscopia, the song is already being played in some american radio stations and the song will be impacting the stations officially in January, 7th, as you can see in allaccess.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.2.171.188 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we are more or less on the cusp of the blurry and arguable definition of notability. I took a look at the Portuguese article (translated to English) and found it informative and well organized. I can't deny that stub articles exist for hundreds or even thousands of songs that may be less notable than "What the Hell", and the predicament or catch 22 here is that this song's own popularity may be working against itself; in other words, many of us are waiting for the song to achieve notability, when it probably already has (not chart-wise, but simply because there's so much media coverage of it—and the Dick Clark's special certainly helped matters). The Portuguese article proves the article can be written without any padding or filler material. I'm definitely game for opening the article if a consensus is reached. I'm not sure how long it takes for a song to chart, but at the very least, the article should be unprotected the minute it does, instead of in March. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RollingStone wrote a review of the song click here --84.173.210.62 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm for that we make the article --Greeneyed soul (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The song was already released on the iTunes of some countries in Europe. It is the #11 song in the italian iTunes! I'm for that we make the article [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.2.173.75 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

iTunes Store charts are WP:BADCHARTS. And release is no indication of notability. Yves (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The song was already released in some countries (Italy and United States); it's a song of an encyclopedic artist and so it's encyclopedic too. Why the article about this song doesn't exist yet? (it is also written here: if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia!) this is our case!--Fede86tp (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Pleas refer to the section below on notability of songs. Yves (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The section below is referred to singles of artists non-encyclopedic or not still.--Fede86tp (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your quotation refers to albums, not singles. This is why Goodbye Lullaby exists. The album has not yet been released (still 2 months away), but there are verifiable references that prove this album by a notable artist WILL exist. That alone qualifies the ALBUM article to be created. However, that does not apply to singles. The qualifications for singles are outlined in the section below. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Restoring edit history

Once this article does become live (when this article meets criteria defined by WP:NSONG--see below), an administrator will have to restore all previous revisions to this page due to a "housekeeping" edit (see logs) which destroyed the attribution for the content which likely will simply be restored, not re-created. I believe that doing this now will void the protection currently in place which will resume the edit-warring / disputes.

As a reminder, criteria set forth by WP:NSONG are summarized as:

• "ranked on national or significant music charts" or
• "won significant awards or honors" or
• "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups"

with mandatory provisions:

• "there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and
• likely for article to grow beyond a stub-status article

~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

I give up on this article. I seriously do. If admins want to override full-protection articles (due to edit-wars and disputes) and call it non-controversial housekeeping and remove all attribution to an article numerous users have contributed to (twice!!), when the article in question does not satisfy wikipedia's guidelines for notability, then there's seriously no point in trying to maintain anything on Wikipedia and explain policies and protections. I give up--even if I admittedly sound like a 10-year-old. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been restored. —Dark 03:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That at least satisfies my disgust with the previous admin's reckless modifications regarding edit history. But why on earth a protected article due to a dispute would simply be overridden and called "non-controversial" is beyond me. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank God the article was created. Wikipedia have a lot of bad, short and untrustable articles and the moderators don't let us create this article just because "the song isn't notable". They would let us create the article and, if the article was bad, they delete it. Simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.2.176.171 (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Genre

I plan on cleaning out the genre in the infobox that says "power pop". the only thing in that cite that suggests that would be "power poppy" hand claps. That's not a very weak cite and I think it should be removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree to *That's a very weak cite. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "Power poppy" is not a genre, and I don't think hand claps can be defined by a genre as well. Since the song is not specifically labeled as "power pop", then it should be removed. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see all the responses so quick! I usually wait longer, but since a good amount agree, I'll be removing it. Feel free to discuss further if you disagree. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pop Punk? I just don't understand why people think she's punk. I don't think that naming your songs things like "what the hell" and having a bad-girl poser attitude makes you punk.--Revilal90 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If a reliable source calls the song pop punk then Wikipedia lists the song as pop punk. Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant. Zylo1994 (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see. How can you know if a source is reliable or not?--Revilal90 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Zylo1994 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Bubblegum pop has sourced but it was influences, or even music style, which is not enough. So leave as bubblegum pop in composition section which is influences not a genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.150 (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Genre again

I've gone through the genre sources and made some changes. I've removed the MTV reference as it's referring to Avril's other music, not this song when discussing genre. I've re-added bubblegum which is used twice: Digital Spy and The Globe and Mail. The references to pop rock are incorrect as they are quoting Avril herself. Per WP:RS and WP:SUBJECTIVE, we need sources from third party sources on things that are subjective like genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

United World Chart

Peak of #10: http://www.mediatraffic.de/tracks.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.79.228 (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BADCHARTS:

*United World Chart/Global Top 40 Albums: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology.

~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 09:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130724020735/http://www.asiri.or.id/ to http://www.asiri.or.id/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)