Talk:Mony Mony

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

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lack of explanation

So . . . uh, what's the song about? I assume it's not alimony payments, but it's never explained. GreenReaper (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, sex? Rgonsalv (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, it's kind of a tradition to play this song at wedding receptions here in the US. In fact, I've never heard it played outside of one. 24.105.183.2 (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Rock

I think that "Mony mony" has pop rock sound like their precious single "i think we're alone now" or "mirage." So I changed genre to rock, pop rock. LSM1204 (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating songs from commercials

Thanks to websites such as Commercials I Hate and Am I Right, as well as the retail apocalypse, we need to eliminate songs used in radio and TV commercials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody2019 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts about the official explanation...

I always took it for granted that the actual meaning of the words was "moany, moany, referring to the sounds many females make during sex. I assumed they change it to the nonsense "Mony" because no one could prove it wasn't just some obscure nickname. Openly making it about sex would run it afoul of various local and regional rules of the era, but making it obliquely about sex was fine, no matter how obvious the actual meaning was. I suspect they saw the MONY sign after the fact and said "hey, theres a perfect explanation for our song title, we'll just say we copied that, and no one can complain, since its the same exact word written on the front of this building. What could be wrong with that?"

70.20.40.215 (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I haven't seen a source for that. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about Nighttrain's cover?

(Probably, around 1978.) Surprisingly, it's missing even in German Wikipedia. (Nighttrain was a German band, wasn't it?) Sasha1024 (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra Kai

A reference to this has been removed, per WP:IPC. No doubt it exists, but I haven't seen any real discussion from a reliable source. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still not happy after reading WP:IPC. I would like a 3rd opinion. I have 2 questions: For articles that discuss brief appearances of songs in media, how do those remain untouched? And what should I do to ensure that a pop culture edit remains on an article? Also, I think you should contact the editor before reverting an edit, as that is what Wikipedia recommends. Misterspaceman (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure not how I can answer those questions in a way that wasn't covered by WP:IPC. There are many articles that mention songs appearing in largely irrelevant games, tv shows, etc. I suspect it's getting better, but very slowly.

3rd opinion requested here. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Doctorhawkes is correct to mention WP:IPC, though WP:IPCV is the more specific point at hand. Put simply, the mention of the use of a song in a TV show should be accompanied by a secondary source, in order to establish that that use of the song was considered significant in some manner. The goal isn't to establish the mere fact that the song was used in the show, but that the use of it gained some level of attention. More colloquially, the goal is not to establish that the tree fell in the woods, but that it made a sound when it fell. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Donlago! This was incredibly helpful, and was the kind of explanation I was looking for. Also, a few more things: Can you tell Doctorhawkes that they should contact the editor about reverting something before actually doing so, because I learned that Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to revert content without warning. I would also like to know why certain pop culture references on Wikipedia aren't backed up by a source. For instance, in the article for Andrea True's "More, More, More", there is a reference from 'Minions: The Rise of Gru' that isn't backed up by anything; I tried doing something similar to this a few times, but got penalized every time. On the talk page for the isolation tank, I made a request for adding a pop culture reference from Cobra Kai, asking if any of the 6 sources are "notable" by any means, considering that it received some level of attention and was considered a memorable part of the series. I couldn't find anything else for 'Mony Mony', unfortunately. Just soundtrack listings. Misterspaceman (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Misterspaceman. There's no requirement that an editor contact anyone before reverting edits (otherwise even reverting obvious vandalism would become a huge chore). Many of the more experienced editors here embrace the essay at WP:BRD, which notes that editors should feel free to make edits they feel improve articles, but also encourages editors to revert changes that they believe to be problematic. However, once an edit has been reverted, ideally the editor who made the original (reverted) edit should be initiating a conversation either at the article's Talk page or the reverting editor's Talk page rather than performing another reversion; otherwise you risk an edit-warring scenario that won't make anyone look good, and could potentially result in one or both editors being blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. All that said, if I don't know why an editor made a change and am not sure it's an improvement, I might reach out to them before reverting their change. But if you're here long enough, you're going to find there can be a substantial difference between what's technically allowed, and what's considered best practice...nevermind what's considered the nicest option. :)

You shouldn't really be getting warned simply for reverting content though, unless your reversion was somehow disruptive. I'd need to review the specifics of the situation before I could weigh in more informatively on that.

Unfortunately, it's a perennial issue (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) that many articles have "in popular culture" sections that contain either unsourced or poorly-sourced content. There's a lot of editors who clean that kind of stuff up when they can, but there's plenty of other editors unfamiliar with the policies and guidelines who add it in as well; it's a bit of a tug-of-war. If it helps, I was editing before WP:IPCV existed, and it was even worse then because we didn't have anything we could authoritatively point to in order to explain why what they were doing was problematic.

Hope this is helpful to you! DonIago (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was super helpful! Thank you, Donlago! Misterspaceman (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]