Talk:Super Bowl LIII halftime show

Reception

---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Full Super Bowl 53 Halftime Show video

In case anyone wanted to rewatch the full or part of the halftime show for the purpose of editing this page without using information on the show from memory, then you can do so with this video on the New England Patriots website at https://www.patriots.com/video/maroon-5-s-full-super-bowl-liii-halftime-show

More coverage

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"Send Them Victorious"

Why is this being inserted into the setlist? Does anyone have any evidence that the "Sweet Victory" homage they played with a brief trumpet fandare is actually instead called "Send Them Victorious" as performed by Graham De Wilde? Neither "Send Them Victorious" or De Wilde are even mentioned on the Band Geeks episode page. Where is this information coming from because I cannot find any sources connecting the specific song or composer to the Super Bowl. Wikipedia information is supposed to be verifiable. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You're now blatantly ignoring sources like Shazam and Spotify and the source provided. The reason it's not mentioned on the Band Geeks page? Who knows, but that doesn't validate your skepticism--Fradio71 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources. Also, which one of those sources mentions the Super Bowl or even SpongeBob or the Band Geeks episode? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

How are retail track listings not reliable? You're trying to dictate what a reliable source is, yet it not being mentioned on the episode's WIKIPEDIA page is what has you convinced? Dude, the sources can't mention the Super Bowl because they're not psychic--Fradio71 (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This isn't an article about a song by the title "Send Them Victorious" existing. Do you have any evidence that this song and composer were featured in the Super Bowl? All other songs mentioned can be found in numerous reliable sources as part of the setlist, such as here. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

3:09 dude. It's the readily available show itself, which if you had watched you wouldn't be rejecting every available source left and right. Now if you could please stop being disruptive and unreasonable that would be great--Fradio71 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That is WP:OR. Also, that video does not provide the title of the song or name of the performer you claim. As stated in WP:V: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

Also, please stop making assumptions and accusations against others. That violates WP:AGF, which is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Thank you. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have added additional sources. I can find no sources mentioning "Send Them Victorious" or "Graham De Wilde" in relation to Super Bowl LIII. I suggest to change the setlist to say:

• Short trumpet interlude featuring the cast of SpongeBob SquarePants from the episode "Band Geeks" -- Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, just because you don't know the name of the song doesn't mean it's not the song that was played. And hey, neither would most mainstream sources, but that doesn't mean the song doesn't have a name. Any attempt to remove the song name should be reverted.--Fradio71 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not how Wikipedia works. Please review the official policies at WP:V and WP:OR. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME? You cant accuse me of not knowing how Wikipedia works just because you don't like what's being said. All I've said are facts of common semse. You're trying to preach at me to assume good faith, but when you reject reliable sources because you don't like them and then accuse others of violating guidelines they have not violated, all while ignoring them just so you can get your way? That is acting in bad faith. You know what acting in good faith is? Seeing "Send Them Victorious" listed in a setlist spot where you didn't know the name of the song and saying "OH, that's the name of the song? I didn't know that!" and leaving it alone--Fradio71 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You have not provided a single source that mentions the song title or the performer in relation to the Super Bowl or the SpongeBob episode. I am requesting a third opinion here Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Your search for a source on such is ludicrous. The music is unchanged from the episode clip it comes from. Therefore if the clip was used in the Super Bowl, it was played in the Super Bowl! Why do you need a sixth source telling you what you already know?--Fradio71 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not revert the request for a third opinion. That violates Wikipedia policy: "If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer."

As I stated on your talk page, I have also reported you to the 3RRNB (here) because of your repeated reverts on this article page. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That is frankly disgusting of you to do. You reverted meand continued to do. You only reported me as an underhanded tactic to get rid of the person you're having a discussion with just to get your way. You accused me of "attacking" you when I did no such thing, and then you accuse me of violating guidelines I did not violate. Therefore, this discussion cannot continue unless the report is rescinded, because all good faith this discussion had is gone.--Fradio71 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of Twitter to make claims about third-parties

User:Davey2010 has reinserted content from Twitter that makes claims about a third-party (here). As per WP:Twitter, using Twitter as a source is considered a self-published, primary source and is only appropriate as a source of information about the author of the Twitter post. It must also meet 5 criteria, in particular, it cannot "involve claims about third parties."

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook.

The reinserted material makes claims about third parties (the NFL, as well as other employees at Nickelodeon): "the crew working on the animation worked under the mindset that it would be used in a manner that more closely fulfilled the petition, however the NFL scrapped the idea and put forward the final product as 'meeting [them] halfway'". This seems to be a clear violation of WP:Twitter, and I cannot find any reliable, third party sources to back the claim made by the author of the Twitter post (who "worked very briefly" on the clip according to his own words). Does anyone have any verification of this claim? Otherwise, I suggest its deletion. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• The content is backed up by the Twitter source and as I said Twitter as a source is generally fine although ofcourse I agree it perhaps should be replaced but either way I consider it sufficient. –Davey2010^Talk 02:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Twitter as a source is generally fine." Where are you getting that information? The policy at WP:Twitter provides specific guidelines for limited use and Template:Cite tweet explicitly says, "Tweets are usually unacceptable as as sources." Why do you suggest we ignore those policies? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I am going to remove the content sourced from Twitter that makes claims about third parties ("According to animator Nico Colaleo, the crew working on the animation worked under the mindset that it would be used in a manner that more closely fulfilled the petition, however the NFL scrapped the idea and put forward the final product as "meeting [them] halfway".). The second sentence sourced from Twitter seems less problematic ("The animation was completed in a week."), especially since it is a simple factual statement rather than a claim about the motives of a third party entity. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reverted, Like I have repeatedly said Twitter is absolutely fine and as noted above it backs the text up, You can wikilawyer all you want but the content stays period, If others outside disagree with the content then fine but we both cannot come to an agreement so the status quo is the content stays. –Davey2010^Talk 02:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010, comments such as "the content stays period" seem to verge on ownership of the article. You have provided no explanation for your position other than repeating that "Twitter is absolutely fine" ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) when that literally directly contradicts the actual policies of Wikipedia. If you want to engage in a discussion, that would be great, but that requires more than simply repeating an opinion that violates Wikipedia policies on use of social media as sources. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Twitter is used almost everywhere all without issue, If you want to replace the sources I would have no problem with that but IMHO the content should stay, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Davey2010, I agree that Twitter can be considered acceptable in certain circumstances, but we would still require consensus on the talk page for inclusion. If poorly-sourced content is disputed it should generally be removed until proper sourcing can be provided. Bradv🍁 02:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done - SHall refrain from ranting, I shan't be reverting from this point forward. Sourced content now removed. –Davey2010^Talk 03:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I spent almost an hour today searching for a reliable source that discusses the NFL's motives or talks about them meeting the petition "halfway", but I could not find any. Davey2010, if you can find another source besides Twitter, I will gladly add the material from it into the article for you. It's a shame we had a disagreement, but I hope we end up working together collaboratively in the future. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Spongebob controversy

Here is Chadtronic sharing some research on why Spongebob's performance was trimmed at the halftime show. https://youtu.be/ujy7ezenAu4

To claim that the clip was mostly received positively, as the Wikipedia article claimed, is deceptive. The Super Bowl LIII video is currently the 47th most-disliked video on YouTube, with 89.08% of votes on the video being dislikes. Even if we assume that some of these dislikes are in error, the fact is, the NFL did not deliver on the "Sweet Victory" petition. They showed an HD clip of Spongebob made specifically for the NFL, but instead of "Sweet Victory", they transitioned to "Sicko Mode" by Travis Scott. I find it hard to believe that they did not expect any backlash. --LABcrabs (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

From the comments, the NHL (hockey) actually played "Sweet Victory".

https://youtu.be/AoAdDe8BDW8

--LABcrabs (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable, third party sources and not original research for claims like that. Also, what article talks about "mostly received positively"? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the Wikipedia article. --LABcrabs (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)