Talk:Blow (Kesha song)

	Blow (Kesha 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 June 23, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Electronic music Low‑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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-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 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.

The AOL source seems problematic. It states that she sings "Let me see them Hanes", but according to the official lyrics at Keshasparty.com, she sings "Let me see them hands", so... Pancake (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we cant use Ke$ha Party as a source. AOL will suffice unless we can find another reliable source that says hands. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe we can get the article's author to change it. Pancake (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we use keshasparty.com as a source? It's the artist's official website. Yves (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is her official website, it can certainly be considered a reliable source and can be trusted in this case to be more accurate than the AOL article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who put this new song cover It's fanmade????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple48 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think one question mark would have sufficed, relax O_O I Changed it, the previous cover (which i also uploaded) was the promotional cover, this is the cover for the actual single release. Google it :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.thanksApple48 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the policy for official music videos not being allowed in the infobox. From what I can see, it's the equivalent of having "official site" in there, which is perfectly acceptable on a page like, say, Barack Obama.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, there's even a template for its use in infoboxes.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im looking for it, why does it matter so much? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your argument, I'm going to add it back in again then. If you revert it without explanation again I will be forced to make a 3RR report, which I really don't want to do since you're a great editor, so please don't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Infobox_single#Proposed_merge_from_Template:External_music_video_into_Template:Infobox_single There you go, consensus wants the template kept but videos added to external links. If you add it back into the infobox you;ll also be reported for 3rr. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a discussion to merge the two templates. Arguments included "this will increase copyvios" which doesn't apply to this case, misc serves well enough (obviously doesn't apply), and "music videos aren't important" which is an opinion and certainly not a referencable guideline or policy.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:EL#What_to_link. Your argument is that there is a template for it, big whoop, there is a template for youtube in the external links as well. Consensus wants music videos in the external links now. Again, please revert your edit. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that guideline. This is a relevant and more importantly official link, so a reason against its inclusion, if it exists, certainly isn't in that guideline.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and Template:YouTube. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just citing random stuff. The perennial site link explains that youtube is acceptable if it's from the official source, which this is. I'm not sure why you linked to the other template.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a relevant and more importantly official link, so a reason against its inclusion" <---- is your opinion, again Template_talk:Infobox_single#Proposed_merge_from_Template:External_music_video_into_Template:Infobox_single dealt with this issue. Consensus wants external links, not the infobox. WP:HEAR "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted". Unless a valid reason is given for inclusion in the infobox it will be removed eventually. Where is your consensus for it being uncluded in the infobox? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A failed merge proposal for a template does not indicate consensus for a limit on the templates use in any way whatsoever. And wait, are you serious? Saying the official music video from her official channel is official is my opinion? Now you're just being downright disruptive.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Youtube_.28not_sure_where_to_post_this_O_O.29 Okay i asked for help, here is your answer on this;

• "The relevant line in wp:external links is wp:ELYES point 2: "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply." However, the link in question [1] does not work in my country (Netherlands) I am pretty sure it only works in the USA and Canada, which means it should be excluded based on wp:ELNO criteria 7. Yoenit (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

-sigh- are we done now? lol. Please say yes. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Scroll up a tad on ELNO. "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" :/ sorry. I have to be honest, I can't see your issue with the link's inclusion. Youtube links are often opposed because they're copyvios, user-made, crappy or unrelated. I'd think that a public, free, official link would be exactly what you'd want for this article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.....that made me chuckle because you read it wrong lol. "Links normally to be avoided is the section, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid" which means linking to the artists official video is an exception to the rules below. According to wp:ELYES point 2 (which are links to be included "What to link") the videos music video goes under external links. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where's it say it needs to be under external links. I still don't see this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please just read WP:ELPOINTS point 2.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a link to an official page, its a link to a copy of the work. Thus wp:ELYES point 2 applies, which does not overrule wp:ELNO as quoted above. Aside from the precise text of the guideline, this link is not gonna work for 90% of the world population, which is a very good reason not to include it. Yoenit (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An official youtube page is certainly an official page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For an artist or band, but not for a specific song/video. Read wp:ELYES point 1 and 2. Yoenit (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have, many times. "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

• The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
• The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable"--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have it right there! subject (organization or individual person). Not book, not song, not movie. Only organizations and persons. Yoenit (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use common sense please. Are you really arguing that nothing but organizations and people have official sites?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that for creative works wp:ELYES criteria 2 applies instead of criteria 1. Yoenit (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2 says that they are allowed to be included. It doesn't say it can be included but not in the infobox. Also, I think common sense dictates that a version of a work posted, hosted, and controlled by its creator can be considered an official site.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOS (which all GA and FA articles must follow, this article will be one of the two very soon), WP:External links (which is apart of MOS Wikipedia:MOS#External_links) it is suppose to be included under external links, not the infobox. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you read the main article for the guideline, it specifies that "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable."--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, im telling you silent consensus (meaning 90% of music articles writers) dont want them in the infobox field. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Purpose_of_an_infobox. "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function" <--- External links is telling us to put the music video there, infobox is telling us to avoid double linking and inter wiki linking. Its linked in the external section now, its not needed in the infobox field, i can tell you now that dozens of editors agree with me as they are daily being removed and changed to an external link section. Any well written GA or FA (recently passed) should follow this. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to just be synthesizing an argument. External links says it can go into an info box if it fits. The section you referred to is about not linking to sections within the article; it says nothing about not linking to external links.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Hello user, The external link for the music video has gone, i want to be able to edit the site and re-add the music video that is available woldwide. The message i recieved is also not correct VEVO are not authorised to use the content, only registered users are aloud to use the content. If the vido is live worldwide then the user has full authorisation to use the content for example "keshaMBS" or kesha's official youtube channel "kesha".

Nathanjshilton (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✗ Not done As i told you on your talk page, Vevo is the only place on Youtube where the video is allowed to be listed, all other copies will be copyright violations and are not allowed on Wikipedia. Sorry. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And while Kesha's official channel would also be acceptable, it doesn't seem to have the video posted.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While lyrics are not mandatory, if they're from her official site I see no reason why they wouldn't be of use in the external links section. It seems to meet every criteria for what should be useful in an external links section.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll wait for others opinions because i don't think they do and i don't want to argue this again. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? They seem to meet every requirement for a good reference to be included in external links? While your obviously an incredible editor for these articles and have basically made them what they are, I do worry you may be showing a bit of ownership.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership has nothing to do with it; maintaining FA and GA rules on all her articles has everything to do with it. Ive never seen a lyric link before, so again, id like to wait for others opinions. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're perfectly acceptable to include, and maybe even useful. They're from her official site run by her label, so they don't break copyright (WP:ALBUMSEL). While nonuse may be a good indicator of unsuitability, there can sometimes be guidelines that are overlooked. Yves (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about this at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Official_Lyrics, so hopefully others can weigh in.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The German release is April 22, 2011, please add! SOURCE--79.216.217.107 (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article repeatedly refers to the chorus being auto-tuned, but I'm not convinced. It sounds to me like she actually sings the notes of the chorus all the way through, and strategic sections are clipped out in post. Can anyone prove that it is or isn't auto-tuned? Justin The Claw (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In the song, she exclaims, "This place about to blow," repeating the line four times in a stuttering, Auto-Tuned voice that carries the chorus over a skittering electro beat." link. Next time just check the sources. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a quote from an AOL music critic, not from the artist or producer. That just proves someone else probably assumed it was auto-tuned. Also, your sarcastic tone was unnecessary. It was, and still is, a legitimate question. Justin The Claw (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've googled other sources and the general consensus seems to point to auto-tune, but personally I think the key change is too fluid to be digitized. Not like this is a life-changing topic or anything. I was just curious. Justin The Claw (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AOL articles and reviews do often suffer from inaccuracies, so it's entirely possible that's the case (indeed, there was an issue with that same article earlier since it has the incorrect lyrics). That being said, (CK)Lakeshade's still right about sources; we'd need an RS to show this wasn't the case, and anything else would be original research.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this will be helpful but please don't be sarcastic or whatever with me, i'm only making a point to help the article. I am a member of Kesha's website and like others i got the newsletter on the 15/04/2011 stating that the new single Blow will be released in the UK on the 17/04/2011. I have no proper source, but i thought this might help give you an idea of its release so you can find an official source. It didn't say whether it was a digital release or the CD, it just clearly stated "New single Blow on the horizon. On Sunday 17th April, Ke$ha's new single Blow will get its UK release." Hope this helps :) O wait, here's a source that might help... http://sony-m.neolane.net/nl/jsp/m.jsp?c=a8fc0ba3c952f5ab95 94.175.70.5 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the addition, unfortunately that source is not reliable. On April 17 (the song's UK release) will be added to the Blow_(song)#Release_history section once Itunes or Amazon has made the songs release available to the public. Hope that clears everything up, happy editing. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official source for Blow's release date... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blow-Explicit/dp/B004VPFKMS/ref=dm_ap_alb7?ie=UTF8&qid=1302998569&sr=1-1 hope this is right and helps! 94.175.70.5 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Blow (song)/GA1

In June 2011, Blow reached sales of 2 mio. in the USA, making it her 6th consecutive single to do so source.

Please add! --79.199.24.6 (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quite long article, but why is there no lycrics?188.25.107.201 (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an encyclopedia, not a lyrical database WP:NOTLYRICS - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Blow (Kesha song). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110304225927/http://www.keshasparty.com:80/us/music/cannibal/blow to http://www.keshasparty.com/us/music/cannibal/blow
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215123427/http://thephoenix.com:80/Boston/music/112394-kesha-cannibal/ to http://thephoenix.com/boston/music/112394-kesha-cannibal/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=61
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64wvezoE2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aria.com.au%2Fpages%2Fhttpwww.aria.com.aupageshttpwww.aria.com.auSINGLEaccreds2011.htm to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupageshttpwww.aria.com.auSINGLEaccreds2011.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110304225927/http://www.keshasparty.com:80/us/music/cannibal/blow to http://www.keshasparty.com/us/music/cannibal/blow

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Blow (Kesha song). 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.beatweek.com/coverstory/8309-keha-the-beatweek-interview-americas-favorite-party-girl-gets-sleazy/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.keshasparty.com/us/music/cannibal/blow
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thephoenix.com/boston/music/112394-kesha-cannibal/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupageshttpwww.aria.com.auSINGLEaccreds2011.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150216182002/http://www.mediaforest.biz/WeeklyCharts/HistoryWeeklyCharts.aspx?year=2011&week=18 to http://www.mediaforest.biz/WeeklyCharts/HistoryWeeklyCharts.aspx?year=2011&week=18
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.keshasparty.com/us/music/cannibal/blow

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]