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

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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles

Edit request from WeeJazzy, 30 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The song has reached 29 on the Costa Rican charts. This would be good if you can add it to the chart table. http://www.charly1300.com/costaricatop30.htm

WeeJazzy (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

charly1300.com is listed at WP:BADCHARTS#Websites to avoid, so this chart cannot be included.—Kww(talk) 17:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct the opening section

It is Katy's second studio album, not third. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.40.54 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening is correct it is her third album. Katy Hudson was her first and One of the Boys was her second. Candyo32 (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Music Charts

http://zpav.pl/rankingi/listy/nielsen/top5.php "California Gurls" is 2nd in Polish Airplay Chart (it's a good chart). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.184.111 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from AxelHenrique, 11 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} California Gurls peaked at number one on Billboard Adult Pop Songs in this week. Fount: http://www.billboard.com/#/column-chartbeat/chart-highlights-adult-pop-rock-songs-more-1004102188.story

AxelHenrique (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I got a page not found error when I checked the link. Please find a working link and try again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from AxelHenrique, 18 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The song California Gurls by Katy Perry peaked at the number 3 in the charts from Italy, and not in 5. Fount: http://www.fimi.it/classifiche_digital.php Thak you! AxelHenrique (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current source says it is in position number 4 and the source you provided says it is number 3. So which one should we use? I'm going to change it from 5 to 4. Davtra ^(talk) 10:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the source provided represents the peak number for digital downloads. It doesn't represent other media (CD). Davtra ^(talk) 10:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia chart

Cali Gurls has been dethroned from the #1 spot...needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.247.52 (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tik Tok rip-off?

Not that I care neither about Ke$ha nor about Katy Perry, but (stuff I heard) apparently according to New York Post (most reliable source I've found), there seems to be more than a passing similarity between this and Tik Tok... can this be mentioned somehow in the article? It seems to be relevant enough to be mentioned --186.87.18.30 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...

YES! What the fuck? Why is there no mention of it on EITHER song's page?? They're the same bloody track...

...

I feel the interest indicated by over a million views of just one of many such comparisons of the songs "California Gurls" and "TiK ToK" on YouTube alone warrants at least a mention of this item in this Wikipedia entry as well as the corresponding entry for "TiK ToK" that the songs are very similar, and that this entry should be made as part of the opening paragraphs (before the table of contents) with a cross-link to the wiki entry of both songs until some consequence comes to light (law suit, public statement, etc.) to warrant a separate full section entry on this issue.

There are several "credible" "mashups" demonstrating the similarity of these two songs. I define credibility in this instance as relying solely on cross-fading and instrumental overlay to prove this point as opposed to "DJ mixing" the two songs dance club style. The above cite of the New York Post article by the original author of this edit uses a "credible mashup" as well as pointing out that both songs were written and produced by Lukasz Gottwald (Dr. Luke) and Benjamin Levin (Benny Blanco) although Katy Perry and Ke$ha are signed to Capital Records and RCA respectively wherein lies the controversy.
Another established source claiming the songs are the same is "Opposing Views" [1] which created their own short "mashup" for the purpose of comparing the two songs.
Finally I cite "Tik Tok and California Gurls are the same song?" [2] by keepmakingmusic which has been viewed over a million times. Additional, a video response to this video [3] demonstrates on a piano keyboard how the melody of the two songs are only one note different for each hand, afterwards showing that the left hand of one song may be played with the right hand of the other with an almost indistinguishable result.
Despite many user, some web media, and a few traditional media comparisons suggesting potential contract violation and copyright infringement, there has as yet been no public statement from either company which begs the question: Is there a legitimate controversy if the affected parties do not care? This is the basis for my position that this does not warrant a separate section entry at this time but it does still warrant prominent mention.

KADC —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinADCarter (talk • contribs) 10:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Because Snoop Dogg is a featured artist Hip-Hop would be a valid genre. --Louis Taylor (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live Performance on June 10th, 2010 in Germany at the season finale of Germany's Next Topmodel, Cycle 5

see Germany's_Next_Topmodel,_Cycle_5#Episode_16:_Das_Finale --Michael (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please update, thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.9.158 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German singles chart

please update the german singles chrt postion it reached number 3 (4 last week) http://www.musicinfonet.de/de/chartverfolgung_summary/title/Perry,Katy/California+Gurls/single —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.146.144.54 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK --Zebra848 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 189.51.33.51, 6 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Sorry for the inconvenience, but could add to list charts the following data: U.S. Billboard Latin Songs - 46 U.S. Billboard Latin Pop Songs - 28 U.S. Billboard Adult Contemporary - 13 U.S. Billboard Dance / Club Play Songs - 2

Source: http://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200?tag=chdrawer#/song/katy-perry-featuring-snoop-dogg/california-gurls/20030595

Turns out that wikipedia is a great source of research and reference to charts here in Brazil and many other countries, and there is a discussion about the position in relation California Gurls on the Billboard charts. Thank you.

189.51.33.51 (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those charts are not necessarily independently notable; I hope you understand? Can you show references to demonstrate that this information is notable - e..g. mentions of same in some newspapers? If so, please re-request. Thanks, 03:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done

Sampled from Calvin Harris?

The song sounds like it literally sampled the beat off of Calvin Harris's I'm not Alone... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnBpUGmcsFo&fmt=18 206.248.178.128 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the romanian position because it was taken from charly1300.com, and that site is not a reliable source. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 14:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to believe that it is not a reliable source? The existing citation was certainly better than no citation at all, and you didn't provide a replacement reference. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charly1300.com is on the list of websites to avoid. Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Please remember to leave an informative edit summary in controversial edits in future to avoid confusion though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precession vs. procession

I have this article on my watchlist so I noticed a recent disagreement over the use of precession vs. procession. Hopefully this has been resolved by User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's edit summary explanation, but the corrected "precession" is indeed the correct term, as the table itself indicates songs which have "preceded" them in the charts, whereas procession refers to the act of "proceeding", i.e. advancing, moving on. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean all the featured articles that have them, including songs like "4 Minutes", "Hollaback Girl", "Irreplaceable", etc. and albums like Love. Angel. Music. Baby., got to FA status without anyone noticing the wrong word was being used? Yvesnimmo (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really I think this is a matter of context; procession could be correct in that the charts proceed from one song to the next; I hadn't considered that previously. But "precession and succession" seems to make more sense together, as the section describes preceding and succeeding songs. "Chart procession" would also make sense, but when used along with the term succession, it seems to be a malapropism for precession. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm getting off topic here, but do you know what purpose having the succession boxes serve, anyway? The chart table already shows its chart position and its chart run is already described in the prose. What's the point of having a link to other songs that have nothing to do with the subject article? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop

It's "Dogg", not "Dog". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.220.216 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request of charting history

The article states the single was number 1 in the UK, Scotland and Ireland.

1) Scotland is aprt of the UK, I propose the deletion of Scotland as a seperate entry as they share the same chart system. 2) Ireland should be entered as either Eire or The Republic of Ireland, to distinguish it from Northern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.197.118.236 (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Scotland is a part of the UK, but the Official Charts Company publishes a separate chart for it.
It's listed as "Ireland" throughout Wikipedia. If Northern Ireland ever comes up with an acceptable chart, it would be listed as "Northern Ireland".—Kww(talk) 20:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

italian certification and us sales

California gurls topped the 4 million mark in United states http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/68916/week-ending-oct-31-2010-acool-million-for-swift/;_ylt=AnaHS.dnYuJaeF5H2MqHToMPwiUv

The FIMI gave a platinum certification for california gurls on week 42

hey..how do i put this song as singapore 98.7fm's top 100 2010 songs number one song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.149 (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Year-End-Charts

Would somebody please add the Year-End-chart position of Germany? It's No. 20 source!

Thanks for adding... --79.216.178.163 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys can we please also add New Zealand, it was #3 on the year end chart. reference is here: http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.94.24 (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 189.51.33.51, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} California Gurls figures in Year-End Chart of: Switzerland - 18 (http://swisscharts.com/year.asp?key=2010) Belgium (Flanders) - 24 (http://www.ultratop.be/nl/annual.asp?year=2010) Austria - 16 (http://www.austriancharts.at/2010_single.asp) European Hot 100 Singles - 14 (http://www.billboard.com/#/charts-year-end/european-hot-100-singles?year=2010&begin=11&order=position) And so many others! Please, put it in this chart! Thanx, and sorry for the nuisance! 189.51.33.51 (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Whew...got em all in there. If I made any mistakes, send me a msg on my talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sic

Why on earth does this article include (sic) after the title? Many works use alternate spellings, and Wikipedia doesn't append them with sic. See, for instance, the article on the Big Star song "September Gurls," which this is named for.

Since Wikipedia does not make this a standard practice with works that use alternate spellings, I can only assume the inclusion of "sic" is to, as the Wikipedia article on sic puts it: "for ridicule, typically by drawing attention to the original writer's mistakes."

Change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnuocca22etaerc (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assume it's for ridicule, I assume something else, namely, that we want to make clear we're not just spelling it incorrectly ourselves. Everyone knows this is the encyclopedia anybody can edit; somebody will surely assume we made a mistake, and may make a good-faith effort to "correct" it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the title be an exception for this? I thought sic was for if there was a mistake, but since it was meant to be "Gurls" would it be needed? Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 00:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat. Here is the page for "September Gurls" by Big Star: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_gurls That page is not titled "September Gurls (sic)." Similarly, here is the page for the Nelly song "Hot in Herre": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_in_herre. It similarly does not use "sic."

Many artists give their works titles with non-standard spellings. Wikipedia does not append (sic) to these. Whether "sic" is included here out of good intentions or not is not the point. The point is that this is unusual for Wikipedia to do, and the page needs to be adjusted to keep it in line with other Wikipedia pages. I would correct this oversight, but the page is locked. Could someone who can unlock the page correct it?

Canada

The song is 4x Platinum in Canada now. It's also Platinum for Ringtones. You can see it on cria.ca.

Please add! --79.199.58.169 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 90.220.160.137 (talk), 21 November 2011

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

PLEASE CHANGE:

[content removed]

This will eliminate the large amounts of whitespace in the article.--90.220.160.137 (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I don't see any unnecessary whitespace in the article and your copy/paste of the entire wikitext isn't very helpful. — Bility (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Austria

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= 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= or |ans= 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= or |ans= 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= or |ans= 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]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on California Gurls. 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:

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} 10:22, 25 February 2016 (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]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on California Gurls. 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: 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) 01:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on California Gurls. 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: 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) 05:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on California Gurls. 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: 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) 06:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California Gurls. 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/20101123054010/http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=35002 to http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=35002

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) 03:19, 25 May 2017 (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]