Talk:Sleazy (song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sleazy (song) 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

Sleazy (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 9, 2011	Articles for deletion	Kept
September 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Rave (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.RaveWikipedia:WikiProject RaveTemplate:WikiProject RaveRave articles

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 articles

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pop music

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Redirect

Okay, i am putting this discussion here as i am getting very annoyed. According to WP:NSONG "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." <--- One review, one mention of its release and 2 references retaining to the album is not past stub class. I wrote the article two months ago, and it has not received significant coverage in any way shape or form, so per WP:BOLD ive redirected the article. Lets break this down some more, according to WP:N and more importantly, WP:GNG an article is only allowed if the topic has received significant coverage, again, one review is not at all significant coverage, if you think so, you need to re-read WP:N and WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." All information is covered under Cannibal (EP), so no significant coverage. Please weigh in. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cover

Where does it come from? I've never seen that cover before. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 00:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is listed in the album description. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is a fake cover or it was never used. I have the iTunes promo single and the cover is very different --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 00:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so do i. This is the original cover, the one you have is the grey and yellow star one. The current cover was removed a week after its release for unknown reasons, since the link went dead, this is the cover we must use. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could just take that one and enlargen it. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 00:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a B-side

It was originally relased with "We R Who We R" and it charted separately. Well? I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 20:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a field option for the song template then you may add it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a field in the single template. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 20:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a single. This is a song, it charted due to the release of Cannibal not because of "We R Who We R". "Sleazy" is a song (possible song b-side), it contains no radio or solo cd release, hence it is not a single. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singles and B-sides use the same template. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 20:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A-Side has been added. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promo single?

"Sleazy" was released to iTunes, so doesn't it become at least a promo single if not a single? Jivesh • Talk2Me 06:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single, no radio release, no solo CD release. "Blow" is the second single off of Ke$ha's "Cannibal" EP. Sleazy was changed to "song" to avoid that stupid promo/vs single thing happening left and right, and because all itunes links became inactive (dead) once the album was released, hence, this is a song. Hope that clears everything up. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken quotation

It seems that the source by Vena contains two errors in quoting the songs lyric's (corrections here). While we certainly cannot misquote Vena, does anyone have any ideas for a work-around? Can we find another source for these lyrics? It is certainly not ideal to further propagate the source's typo. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and corrected this lyric typo and added {{citation needed}} until the proper source turns up. For now it is probably best keep known errors out of the article, although in the long-run we certainly need a citation. It may even be better to remove Vena as a source for this quotation altogether (although {{citation needed}} helps makes it clear we are quoting the song's lyrics, not Vena). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An admin seriously just added original research to an article.... wow..... this will be removed in the next few days because i believe our key policy is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us work please together to come up with a solution. As we discussed, temporarily correcting a known error while simultaneously admitting that a better source is needed (by use of {{citation needed}}) is hardly original research. We should always act according to the spirit of the rules, rather than to the letter. After doing some searching, I do not think that there is any reliable source currently available that contains the correct lyrics for this line. Thus, since it seems that the needed citation does not exist, it is probably best to remove this lyric altogether. "Verifiability, not truth" does not apply when the reliability of the source itself is questioned. What do you think about removing this quotation altogether? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lakeshade, I think this is the best option for now. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sleazy (Kesha song)/GA1