Talk:Blurred Lines

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

Requested move 1[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Blurred Lines (song) → Blurred Lines – There's only one "Blurred Lines". I know it's the album title, too, but let's wait to make an album page until we at least know some information about the album. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The purpose of disambiguators is to, well, disambiguate; there is no point having one if there is nothing to disambiguate. Move for now; we can think about moving later.--Launchballer 09:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

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 not moved. Despite some weak rationales all around, WP:TWODABS suggests we should have a primary topic, and arguments that the song is primary topic here were not refuted. The suggestion that an album should always have primacy over its title track has a certain amount of intuitive appeal, but there is demonstrably no rule to that effect here. And for now, the hatnote will help any confused readers. --BDD (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blurred Lines → Blurred Lines (song) – Since Robin Thicke just announced the released date of the Blurred Lines album, now is an appropriate time to move it back. But considering the song's worldwide success, I say we create a short disambiguation page to say there's an album and this song as the lead single. Relisted. BDD (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 68.44.51.49 (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No disambiguation available. The album has no article, and even so, the song is currently the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural close this just closed last week. It was your own proposal. If you want to reopen it, then get it relisted by WP:MRV -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All one needs to do is name the album article Blurred Lines (album) and add a hatnote to this one, but nothing needs to be done at this time. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurred Lines is the album. This article is a song from that album, therefore it should be named Blurred Lines (song). It's a natural order of Wikipedia for the main article of interest should inherit the title. Don't believe me? Here's another article that underwent the same process. Hell, look at the previous Robin Thicke album on Wikipedia and you'll find this and this! Same goes for Sex Therapy and it's title track! You can't just bend something that has been set for a long time just because you feel too lazy to make the initiative.
    RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 09:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget about this example. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but 68.44.51.49 how many bytes of editor time did this just waste? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only. An album is named after the song and still the album is the primary topic. That doesn't make sense. An album is merely a collection of songs!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You're not supposed to make a dab page with only two members. Whichever is the primary topic should be at Blurred Lines with a hatnote. I think the hit single is the primary topic at least until the album comes out. Siuenti (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Parody video[edit]

There was a parody video with Thicke on Jimmy Kimmel ("#GUILLERMO" etc.)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3[edit]

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 not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blurred Lines → Blurred Lines (song) – I said we move it back after we know more about the album. Now the album has been released in the United States, so there needs to be a disambiguation page between the two. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe so, but "there needs to be a disambiguation page" is demonstrably wrong. When albums and their title tracks both have articles, sometimes the base title is a dab, but either the album or the song can be considered WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and occupy the base title instead. Per WP:TWODABS, this is arguably a better solution. I take no position here, but I advise you to advance a stronger argument. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The song is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See ...Baby One More Time and ...Baby One More Time (album). — Status (talk · contribs) 19:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the album isn't always the primary topic, and certainly isn't here. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The album is a #1 album in the UK and the song was also #1 out there. Why would we need a primary topic? 68.44.51.49 (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how much did the album sell compared to how much the single sold? — Status (talk · contribs) 01:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close stop bouncing the title back and forth, you nominated for renaming in RM1, and RM2. If you didn't like your own proposal in RM1, why did you propose it in the first place? Go to WP:MRV if you want, but this should stay closed for a year, in the case of a user called "68.44.51.49". -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the song is the primary topic. Full stop. Unreal7 (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per closing note to RM2. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. This doesn't have to be a once a month discussion. There's no issue with the way it is since there are only the two articles anyway. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 4[edit]

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 procedural close. I'm carrying out AjaxSmack's technical request for this move and move-locking the title. There should be no more unilateral moves here. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blurred Lines (song) → Blurred Lines – There is already an RM in place to move Blurred Lines (album) → Blurred Lines but consensus is so far against that, also the song was moved from Blurred Lines → Blurred Lines (song) at this edit [1] without discussion. I propose a WP:2DAB solution with the song at Blurred Lines with a hatnote the album. There are three previous RM's all supporting the song at the main title. Zarcadia (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Covers[edit]

If anyone wants to add this cover, it has merit:

Blurred Lines - Vintage "Bluegrass Barn Dance" Robin Thicke Cover

23:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)81.174.156.198 (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blurred Lines. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Blurred Lines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

One YouTuber seems to think that this song sampled Marvin Gaye's, possibly because of the tin percussion and Whoo heard in the background. However, the song was not directly sampled and the percussion's time signatures are different on both songs. And in my opinion, It sounds apparent that the whoop coming out of Pharrell's mouth in the video is original. Therefore I feel that Gaye doesn't quite deserve writer credits.Mrakd002.302 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Blurred Lines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Blurred Lines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Cleanup tag[edit]

I called for cleanup, because the article has become only poorly encyclopedic over time, losing its structure through addition of sentences to sections where they do not belong (if they belong at all), and allowing the same subject to come up repeatedly in more than one section—specifically, the critical response as it pertains to controversial interpretations that suggest support for violence against women.

This drift in the article is in part because there has been little attention paid to small additions of content to various sections—e.g., to "Background and production", which now also covers Thicke's attempt to define the meaning and intent of the lyrics, and a mention of commercial advert licensing (i.e., marketing/business aspects). A further example is the "Music and lyrics" section, which now, rather than just presenting descriptions of these (based on reporting of sources), now begins the process of criticism (supposedly assigned to other sections).

A further, major editorial decision adds to the complexity—the decision to distinguish between critiques of the lyrics, and critiques of the official videos accompanying them. This is not helped by there being two versions of the video. So, yes, a complex subject.

But, I would suggest a look at release dates of music and video would argue for just two sections, one focusing on critical response to the music, a second on the critical response to the lyrical content (in each, with comments based on the video, to the extent they exist, supporting the discussion of either music or lyrics). That is, there should not be separate sections on controversy over the music and controversy over the video.

And there should not be literally tens of quotes regarding the debate over the meaning and impact of the video and lyrics. In a scholarly way, categorise the interpretations (mate-enticing only, rape encouraging, etc.), then for each, add 2-3 quotes from the best sources that represent each distinct category of views. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of all that have spoken on a subject. That is, pick representative quotes.

And in doing so, please do not let things slide back to having exhaustive quotes based on the most prurient ways of stating things. Readers here can go to any lyric site to see what actual explicit lyrics are involved. (We do not need to return to fully quoting the "I'll give you something big enough..." line.) Here, we are mostly to be reporting what the best correspondents are saying about the lyrics, and good summary writing that focuses on the reponses of others rarely necessarily mean reproducing full lines of lyrics.

And what Thicke has said about the meaning and intent needs to be gathered (from the various sections), and all condensed and placed in the controversy section. Meaning and interpretation in art is a difficult matter, but the artist's stated intent—or intents, if statements are conflicting, as they appear to be—is part of the historiography. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:A973:84B0:8C5A:3677 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:246:C700:558:A973:84B0:8C5A:3677: You're right about the issues with this article. I arrived here because there's been a request on the GOCE page for copy-edit. However, it requires much more than just copy-editing. Frankly, it's a mess. I've had a go at one section - see here It's far from perfect, but a step in the right direction, I believe Leoseliv (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blurred_Lines&oldid=1206345673"