Jump to content

Talk:Cat Daddy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCat Daddy 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 10, 2011Candidate for speedy deletionDeleted
June 10, 2011Candidate for speedy deletionDeleted
May 3, 2012Candidate for speedy deletionDeleted
May 19, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
May 19, 2012Candidate for speedy deletionKept
May 27, 2012Articles for deletionKept
June 19, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
August 26, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 29, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a bikini-clad rendition of the "Cat Daddy" dance by the reigning Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover model Kate Upton (pictured) was temporarily banned from YouTube?
Current status: Good article

Deletion log history

[edit]

The deletion logs include the following three entries:

14:15, 10 June 2011 Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) deleted page Cat Daddy (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject)
17:11, 10 June 2011 Acroterion (talk · contribs) deleted page Cat Daddy (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: A9: Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article)
18:15, 3 May 2012 Alexf (talk · contribs) deleted page Cat Daddy (A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance)

Contested deletion

[edit]

This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a musical recording that does not indicate its own importance and where the artist's article does not exist, because... Please be patient with my editing. The song has regained prominence this month as a result of a YouTube scandal. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original version

[edit]

I see one YoutTube posting of the original with 66.5 million views posted on December 2, 2010 and another seemingly identical YouTube posting with 4.2 million page views posted on March 9, 2011. Are they identical?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unsourceable content

[edit]

The following article does not appear to be a WP:RS, but has a lot of interesting content that we should look for: http://freddyo.com/new-artist-rejectz-starring-chris-brown-cat-daddy-rej3ctz/uncategorized/ .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cat Daddy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 23:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Hello, I'll be reviewing this article for the next few days.[reply]

Round 1

[edit]

First of all, i've detected the following issues on the article.

  1. The song hasn't charted on any national chart.
  2. "The Rej3ctz", who seems to be the original artist, doesn't have an article, so this article is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9.
  3. The album for the song doesn't have an article.
  4. Also, only the music video os released on iTunes, but that doesn't mean the song is notable.
  1. Most of its sources are from YouTube, and YouTube is not a reliable source.
  2. 90% of the article relies on YouTube, so, without such information, this article can only reach stub status, if isn't deleted per the guideline stated above.

Second, prose problems:

  • "The song and dance became topical again". Became topical?
  • ""Cat Daddy" is a 2010 song by The Rej3ctz and an eponymous dance". Bad prose.
  • "The dance was notable as one that Chris Brown performed during 106 & Park 10th Anniversary special in October 2010, while the song was notable as a MTV Jams "Jam Of The Week" in January 2011." First, this doesn't mean notability. Second, Chris Brown can perform any unknown song on any event an that doesn't mean it's notable.
  • ""Cat Daddy" dance originated before being linked to the song." That says 'Cat Daddy' is a dance, not a song. the song came later. It's another reason why the article might not exist.

After all of this, I have to quick fail this article. it does not meet the guidelines for a Good article, and also for being an article on Wikipedia. I'll be listing it to speedy deletion.

Verdict
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


Final comment: There is a lot of work to do before matching this article to the GA criteria. It has to be cleaned up first to meed WP guidelines. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA nomination

[edit]

I forgot to explain this on the review, so i'll write it here for any editor willing to improve the article.

As the article is written as a single release, it must be evaluated as a music related good article nominee, so, the following information is needed to meet such criteria:

On infobox
  1. Duration of the song —  Done --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Label/Imprint —  Done --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The lead says it was released in 2010, the infobox says 2011 (may be inconsistent)
  4. Cronology of the main performer (if possible)
  5. Formats of release —  Done --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 23:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If the song has lyrics, the writer(s) (if possible)
  7. When was recorded
On article body
  • There are too much 'external videos' templates around the article. They should be moved all into the see also section, wich must be created.
  • There is no composition, recording, release history and chart performance.
  • Here is one big problem. As the article is treated as a single release, it must meet this guideline: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." If this guideline os not met, then it "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song."
  • And there is another problem, the main performer, and who solely released the song, doesn't have an article.
  • The solution: Change the article style from a single/song article to a more general music article to avoid this guideline.
  • The song has a music video. Why isn't a 'music video' section on the article? It is enough information to write this section.
Other things to note

First, on the article, the "street dance" template appears. So, why don't just rewrite the article like, as an example, the Crip Walk or the Dougie? if the article is not written as a single/song article, then it doesn't have to met the song/single guidelines and all i wrote above can be easily avoided. Also, the prose comments i wrote on the review should be considered.

Second, it is highly recommended to add a music sample for to the article, wether it's written as a dance or as a single release. I recommend to change the style out from a song article. If the style is changed, it has higher probabilities to be promoted to GA status. I'd be glad if anyone finds this information useful.

--Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional

[edit]

To fit the release history, duration, label and formats, i've found this:

Also, the song was included on this compilation:

Also, i know this website is no reliable on Wikipedia, but it gives charts:

Wow, Billboard gave me the charts! Look:

You see? I was right in failing the article. There is so much information to be added on it before it passes GA. I hope this will be useful.

--Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 14:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be glad to help. I'll take a look to find chart information for those songs. I know i made a mistake nominating the article for deletion before even searching for charts or releases. I'll be searching for charts for those songs. Saluts! --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 16:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Work

[edit]

I've made a lot of edits to the article. Still, there's information needed before it's ready for GA. I'll be developing the Composition and background sections with the footnotes already on the article, and other refs i've checked on the web. --Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Kate Upton video is poorly worded and contains unneccesary information. I fixed it once, but it was reverted and is oorly worded again. The video being banned on the 1st or the 2nd and who reported it is completely irrelevant to the important part of the section. State the facts and leave out the meaningless detail that provides no additional value to the reader. Who cares if the actual date the video was taken off YouTube was the 1st or the 2nd or who reported that it was back up? Until terrible writing like that is fixed this article is a far cry from GA. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The video being banned and becoming newsworthy is the only reason why this article exists. The article was deleted several times before. It took a controversy about its banning to get WP:RS to write about it. When it was banned is also relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was banned on the 1st or the 2nd makes absolutely no difference in the least. It is repetative and takes away from the story. If the world ended today would it matter if it ended at noon or 1pm? Would it matter who reported it first? Report the important facts. Arzel (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cat Daddy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AJona1992 (talk · contribs) 00:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "Cat Daddy" is a 2010 song by The Rej3ctz and an eponymous dance. - why would you want to start off the sentence like this? Maybe saying "Cat Daddy" is a song recorded by American recording artist The Rej3ctz or American rap band since there is not article based on them on Wikipedia. For this the single makes me wonder if it meets the criteria.
  • Saying that the dance is "notable" is POV-ish and the sentence that follows it borders WP:OR. Why is the dance notable? You give no reason but saying Chris Brown had done a version of it, this does not make it notable.
  • The lead alone needs work. Please check other GA song articles for a model article. Sentences like this one "It was released as a music download on February 16, 2011 on iTunes and charted on several Billboard charts, including fourteen weeks on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, after being re-released on June 27, 2011." needs work. First off the sentence is too big. "It was released as a music download..." try saying "It was released for digital download". Another sentence "charted on several Billboard charts, including fourteen weeks on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs," which charts did it peak? What was the peak positions for the song?
  • The official video has had over 70 million YouTube views. needs to be in present-tense tone
  • The song and dance became topical again due to a viral video in May 2012 when reigning Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover model Kate Upton posted a video of her bikini-clad rendition of the dance on YouTube and YouTube temporarily banned the video. another long sentence. This sentence "became topical again" is not very grammatical and "reigning" sounds POVish.
  • I'm going to quick-fail this article as it needs further fixings. Please tell me how YouTube is a WP:RS? Try fixing these issues and others like it in the article and post it at WP:PR and at WP:GOCE/REQ before nominating again. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cat Daddy/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 21:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


Infobox

[edit]
  • No issues

Lead

[edit]
If you are going to mention it as a dance, I would change it to "Cat Daddy" is a 2010 song by American Hip hop group The Rej3ctz. It is based off a dance of the same name and is from the 2010 mixtape... Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would change the prose of the sentence, so that it makes more sense. For instance, Chris Brown performed the dance during the 106 & Park 10th Aniversary special in October 2010. Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wanted you to put the latest date where the video had 70 million views. Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted you to mention at least two examples of celebrities in the lead section. Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies with this; I wanted you to put as of what month and year that this video had six million views. Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original version

[edit]
  • Then, the Rej3ctz released a video of the song, featuring Brown dancing, that was made at Venice Beach in the summer of 2010. → Verifiable?
This issue needs to be addressed before I pass this article. Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Had to use YouTube in this instance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Rp0211 (talk2me) 19:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I misinterpreted this, so this issue has been addressed. Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 7 May 2012 the original December 2, 2010 upload of the official video has over 66 million YouTube views,[8] → Fix date formatting to be consistent with rest of article
This issue needs to be addressed before I pass this article. Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...while an alternate March 9, 2011 upload of the video has an additional 4 million plus views.[9] → Only include official information
This issue needs to be addressed before I pass this article. Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are identical official videos uploaded to alternate file hosts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Rp0211 (talk2me) 19:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions

[edit]
Since there is only one Daytona 500 per year, it is not necessary in this instance. Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many readers will remember the date of the 2012 Daytona 500 forever? We want to be clear that this occurred a few months before the Cat Daddy phenomenon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to this if it was not wiki-linked. Since it is wiki-linked, readers can access information such as the date it occurred. Rp0211 (talk2me) 19:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tracklisting

[edit]

Chart performance

[edit]
  • No issues

Release history

[edit]
  • No issues

Notes

[edit]
  • Only italicize publications such as magazines and newspapers
  • Wiki-link the work and publisher (if possible) if it has its first appearance in the section
  • If a source repeats in the section, do not wiki-link it as it was mentioned before
I understand what you are saying, but doing so repeatedly would violate WP:OVERLINK. Also, I still see numerous issues with this section; I can go over each reference and put what needs to be fixed if you want. Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline that you cite says, footnotes are an exception: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It talks about it being helpful to readers. I'm talking about instances with, for example, references 26-31. Rp0211 (talk2me) 19:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even thought it appears redundant, many readers are able to see mouseover details and do not look down at the actual notes section. They only see the specific footnote for the number that they are mousing over. Thus, repeated content helps a reader who is only reading any one of the individual hooks. That is why I generally repeat footnote content. I don't assume the reader is reading through the footnotes at the bottom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Rp0211 (talk2me) 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure everything complies with WP:REF


After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. There are numerous prose issues, reference formatting errors, among other things. I decided to put it on hold because I believe you can fix these issues within the general seven days. Also, make sure to expand the information about the original version of the song, including things like background information, lyrics, critical reception, etc. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 (talk2me) 22:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the issues have been addressed above, except the Daytona 500 issue. Besides this, I mentioned expanding the information on the original version of the song. Try and include things like background information, lyrics, critical reception, and a possible music sample so this article can be broad in its coverage. Rp0211 (talk2me) 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Daytona date.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been more than seven days and all of the issues have not been addressed, I am going to have to fail this article for good article nomination at this time. Once these issues are addressed, you are more than welcome to renominate this article. Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused on why this was failed. I am unaware of outstanding unresolved issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Due to miscommunication between the nominator and the reviewer, I am reopening this article to fix the remaining issues that are left and will give the nominator seven more days. Rp0211 (talk2me) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am working on some RL stuff for the next 3 days, but starting Thursday or Friday I expect to get to these issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rp seems to have disappeared, and everything seems fine here, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who posted Upton's video?

[edit]

I heard it was Terry Richardson that actually posted the video, not Upton, could someone resolve this? 71.139.163.158 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cat_Daddy&oldid=1206576224"