Talk:California Gurls

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California Gurls article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

California Gurls was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 22, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Electronic music Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Katy Perry High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Katy Perry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Katy Perry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Katy PerryWikipedia:WikiProject Katy PerryTemplate:WikiProject Katy PerryKaty Perry
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music High‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music Mid‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Austria

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Platinum for CG in Austria... Same source as the existing one! Please change that... --79.199.37.136 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Celestra (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request from HannahSGTC

The children's TV series My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic parodied this in an ad, rewriting the song to be about "Equestria Girls". I think this use seems notable enough to be mentioned in this song's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahSGTC (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

I don't believe my edits should have been undone for these articles. My statement was "wikilink to funk-pop. genre is not mentioned within article. the term "disco-popping" does not just shorten down to disco...I don't even know what that sentence means in that article. About also says "electronic and effervescent" which isnt genre.".

Funk-pop is not described on the article for funk. What is funk-pop? You should not link to something where there is no definition for the given term.
Disco-popping is also not specific enough. Popping could be used as way to describe that it's dancable or that it's a pop song. The article does not make it clear.
Describing the track as an electronic track is also not specific. It describes it's the sound of it or the base of it's instrumentation, but it doesn't really clarify that the author was discussing genre.

You need to find more strong sources to get all these things. Not to mention we have three different sources who can't even agree to what genre the song is. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an FA, you're changing all these Katy Perry articles and scrutinizing EVERY. SINGLE. SOURCE. until you find one that says "everything about this song is the electronic genre because blah blah blah". I'd love to see you go through any Rihanna or Britney article, you'd have a field day. The sources don't have to be scrutinized the way that you do, especially not at a non-GA level.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's a featured article or not as every article should aspire to be a featured article. If your largest argument is that I'm being picky, that doesn't make the other ciations any more correct. And I have gone through those other articles before. Just not yet. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does, read the GA page. The sources are perfectly acceptable as they are, but if this was attempting to be an FA article, it would be a different story and would have to be re-evaluated. They can be kept as they are for now. --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one editor found them acceptable, but I don't. That's why I'm bringing them up. The article failed it's GA-review. It doesn't matter if an article is a stub or a FA, it should represent things appropriately, not through vague interpretation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But in your opinion, it is a vague interpretation, nobody else has had a problem but you. It ones thing if it said "the song sounds like Lana Del Rey" and I linked it to indie-pop, but the sources aren't vague whatsoever, they state what song the genre is, but not in the way that you feel suits your opinion. I've noticed that a majority of your edits have been towards film articles. Film reviews and music reviews are two separate things, and I think that is where the problem lies.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many people have problems with it. I'm just as important as any other editor, and I'm bringing up an issue. The terms they are using are too vague. Can you understand that? I don't think it matters what I edit more, as rules about citations don't change between projects. (not to mention I've created several good articles for music). If the citation isn't strong, I'm going to remove it, and if you are wikilinking to to terms that are not explained appropriately, they should not be wiki-linked. If I wanted to be strict, I'd say we shouldn't mention genres that we don't have articles for. But I digress, if I'm not breaking any rules and finding sources weak, they will be removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying The Toronto Sun, New York Times, and the Daily Telegraph are weak? Dear lord...--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you didn't insult my opinion. I didn't mean they were weak sources, I just they way interpreted were not specific enough. The souce is weak because the information you are trying to pull from them is not specific enough to say it's part of a genre. "disco popping" is not good terminology, we don't have articles or information about certain genres suggested, and the electronic one is far too vague. That's why they are weak. Any questions? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They literally say "the track is electronic", which is about as good as it gets when referring to genres, there's no "vagueness" to it. It's obvious what "disco-popping" is, it's like saying disco-licious, it's just WP:COMMONSENSE that you're blowing way out of proportion.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh fine. I still don't agree but if your feelings are so strong by it i'll let it pass. I don't think think we should wiki link to genres that aren't described in certain pages though. Do you agree to that at least? Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has objected to it since my last post, I'll remove inappropriate wikilinks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry lol, I forgot to check back here, but yeah if the genre doesn't have a wiki page then it shouldn't be wikilinked :) --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can i edit this page

i wanted to put that this song is on just dance 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazibo Tangz (talk • contribs) 13:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I found a few grammar errors in the page for Katy Perry's "California Gurls" and I was wondering if I could edit and make those changes real quick. 66.79.195.148 (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you write the changes you want to make in this section I can edit them for you :) Samjohnzon (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ok then samjohnzon, then I would like you to please change the link to the critic Bill Lamb because its red and that means that there is no wikipedia page for that music critic. Also, the article should state specifically the member of Big Star that was lost instead of just saying "one of its members" and the genre section in the infobox should be changed from disco-pop and funk-pop to nu-disco and funk. That would make the article even better. Thanks. 66.79.195.148 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Corrected the first two. I'll need a reliable source saying the song is nu-disco/funk to change the genres in the infobox though. Samjohnzon (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It's 125 beats per minute, not 138 72.133.57.29 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max Martin is credited under the "Producers" section but without a link to a Wikipedia page for him as for the other 2 credited producers. Such a page now exists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Martin. Please update the credit to include a link to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve hoge (talk • contribs) 07:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funk pop and disco pop?

Um, excuse me but how is this song funk pop and disco pop? Look I get it, this article is run by source nazis...but do you guys not have any ears of your own? The song is obviously by all definitions an electropop track - so why would you guys just be going around spouting funk and disco? This is so far from it. Explain. 2602:306:35AD:60E0:888:45C3:EE03:9C (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just following the rules. Genre is subjective, so we have to go by sources per WP:RS. I don't even agree with it all the time, and personally feel genres shouldn't be in the infobox. But it's not a decision for me to make alone. My suggestion would be just to find sources if you truly feel this a grievous error. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Can someone fix this, I have tried to revert last before me edit but somehow all of it got reverted? And I can't return it because of some blacklisted page? Dhoffryn (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Dhoffryn (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the about.com link culprit, and now the page is restored plus I undid the IP it seemed like you wanted to revert. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]