Jump to content

Talk:Pork and Beans (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePork and Beans (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
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2009Good article nomineeListed
September 19, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Director

[edit]

The first sentence stating who directed the music video contradicts reference 25 and the sentence in the second paragraph beginning "According to Cullen..." Anyone know what's up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junemrc (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

[edit]

Please note that the external links for the references to Daft Hands and Daft Bodies are not copyright violations, as they are to the band's official YouTube channel, and thus are up on YouTube by the direct action of the copyright holders. Thus, the WP:EL guideline is not violated. -- 207.181.228.210 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other EL's

[edit]

People are trying to add links to alternate sites for the video or lyrics. Neither of these are appropriate per WP:EL per copyright violations and WP:NOT per lyric issues. However, because YouTube was the official channel of first release for the video, it is an appropriate link in this case. --MASEM 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who Is She?

[edit]

There is a girl with colored panties sit on a chouch betwenn the chocolate rain and the scene of afro ninja kicking butts, who is she? Maeby is a good idea put the list of memes on order when apears on the video

PS: sorry 4 my bad Eanglsh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.73.87.230 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. [1]

Slightly edited TV version?

[edit]

I was trying to chase down info on the TV premier of the video to add to the article and came across MTV's version online: [2]. There is one significant addition to that video, in that there's a Rick Roll'd mention at a point that could have easily been added in post-post-production (second dramatic chipmunk look is where it's at). I'm trying to find out if this was originally in the video for YouTube or added later (intentionally or not), but at this point, can't confirm anything, upto and including if that is the real TV version. --MASEM 05:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure meme references

[edit]

The opening scene in which they sit down with their instruments is a replica of the Canon Rock Kid's room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.125.40 (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Ninja

[edit]

I made the edit without checking here, but on Xin's website he posted that he was featured in the video and he is visible at 2:36 on the youtube video. It's very short, but I just added it for the sake of completeness.--Maestro Vagabundo (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed list of referenced memes

[edit]

My addition of a link to a detailed list of internet memes referenced in the video of the song (http://dispo.se/2008/05/27/list-of-memes-referenced-in-pork-and-beans-by-weezer/) has been reverted. Is this not appropriate information for this article? I understand this kind of second-by-second breakdown of a song's video is not appropriate for a wikipedia article itself, but an external link seems to me to be a useful addition. what do you people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComaVN (talk • contribs) 19:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blog posts, unless there are from someone directly connected to the work, are not considered as appropriate external links, in addition to the fact there's 3 reliable sources that list out the youtube videos involved already. --MASEM 13:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the explanation. ComaVN (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Video

[edit]

Are there plans to add a section for the alternate video with the added meme's? http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/node/148455 69.216.247.203 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need a better confirmation (more reliable source) this is officially Weezer-sanctioned. If it is, it should be added. --MASEM 03:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this good enough? http://www.weezer.com/blog/default.aspx?nid=20142 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nohbdy666 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no, they don't confirm that it's "official". Trust me, I'm looking for one, and surprised I've not found it yet (I would think Wired or the like would have had it). --MASEM 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the blog comment just before that one which says
"...PORK AND BEANS REDUX; Okay, the long rumored "second version" of the Pork and Beans video is finally on our doorstep. A lot more stuff got filmed last May than what you saw in the now famous version. So check back shortly here and on our Youtube page for this all new yet oddly familiar video!" How about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nohbdy666 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better since it confirms they had a hand in it. Added, but still would like more sources to pick up on it. --MASEM 15:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can Any find a working version of this video? It has been removed from youtube since this conversation was held. Zark424 (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C class

[edit]

It has enough sources to get a C and it's well balanced. Spiderone (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian

[edit]

If Cuomo is a vegetarian then why did he write a song about pork and beans? Is it supposed to be ironic? Spiderone 08:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pork and Beans (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    This is me, but maybe adding the band's nationality to the lead might help. Same section, "Many also thought the song sounded like songs from Weezer's earlier albums in particular The Blue Album and Pinkerton" ---> "Many also thought the song sounded like songs from Weezer's earlier albums in particular The Blue Album (1994) and Pinkerton (1996)", so that it can provide context for the reader. Do the same in the Reception section. Same section, "The video won a Grammy for Best Short Form Music Video in the 51st Grammy Awards" ---> "The video won a Grammy for Best Short Form Music Video at the 51st Grammy Awards". Same section, "The song was featured in the trailer for Yes Man[3] and Whip It!" ---> "The song was featured in the 2009 film trailers for Yes Man[3] and Whip It!". In the Writing and inspiration section, you might want to say who "Rivers Cuomo" is. In the Music video, who's "Liz Shannon Miller"?
    One bit left.
    Check.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the lead, "The track debuted at #19 on Billboard's Modern Rock chart, and spent eleven weeks at #1" ---> "The track debuted at #19 on Billboard's Modern Rock chart, and spent eleven weeks at #1", Billboard needs to be italicized, since it's a music magazine. In the Reception section, italicize "NME", another music magazine. Same section, link "Billboard" once. Same section, "The song reached #1 on the Billboard Hot Modern Rock Tracks charts in only its third week on the charts. It became its ninth Top 10 hit on this chart and third Number One overall and spent 11 weeks at #1" ---> "The song reached #1 on the Billboard Hot Modern Rock Tracks charts in only its third week on the charts. It became its ninth Top 10 hit on this chart and third number one overall and spent 11 weeks at #1", "Number One" the n and o shouldn't be capitalized. Same section, "...making it one of only 17 songs to ever sit at #1 on that particular chart for 10 weeks or longer and one of 3 songs to have spent 11 weeks at #1" ---> "...making it one of only 17 songs to ever sit at #1 on that particular chart for 10 weeks or longer and one of three songs to have spent 11 weeks at #1", per here. You need to have a consistency between "#[any number]" and "number [any number]". Same section, Pork and Beans shouldn't be italicized, it needs quotations. In the Music video section, "Other internet memes mimicked in the video include the Dramatic Chipmunk, parodies of G.I. Joe public service announcements" ---> "Other internet memes mimicked in the video include the Dramatic Chipmunk, parodies of G.I. Joe public service announcements", "G.I. Joe" is a film, thus needs to be italicized. Same section, "Neil Cicierega's Potter Puppet Pals", italicize "Potter Puppet Pals". Same section, add quotes around "Badger Badger Badger" and italicize "Line Rider". In the lead there's mention that the song appeared in two trailer films and on Rock Band, but it's not mentioned in the article. You need to fix this and for the game say which game series the song appeared in.
    Check.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    "Uncut", "Los Angeles Times", "Philly News", "NME", "New York", "The Herald", "Spin", "Entertainment Weekly", "Billboard", "Wired", "USA Today", and "People" need to be in the "work" format, since they are magazines/newspapers publications.
    Check.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    File:Weez-PorkAndBeans.jpg needs a lower resolution.
    Is it OK now? Spiderone 17:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tackled all the points at 1a, 1b, and 2a. Just one comment. The song was released as downloadable content for the Rock Band series, meaning that it plays both in the first and the second game, so it is impossible to specify which game (the link provided goes to the series which describes how downloadable content works). --MASEM (t) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. See, the sentence just seemed that it was included in the first game or something. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the italics and the remaining 1a Spiderone 08:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to both Masem and Spiderone for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Pork and Beans (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:

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) 00:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pork_and_Beans_(song)&oldid=1195552324"