Jump to content

Talk:Tay Zonday

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is dead to me

[edit]

How the hell did this man get his own Wikipedia page? If you can tell me anything he's done to make a significant contribution to modern society, I'll bake you a cake. Hint: writing a bad song and singing it poorly doesn't count. No, being on a badly animated cartoon doesn't count, either. Damn people, where the hell are your priorities?! --M.Neko (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Dude's been in cola adverts, on South Park and a bunch of other shit. I'd say his noteable. There's a bunch of other shit which gets pages like every single shitty webcomic ever. Some writers/artists (lol) even have their own page.[reply]

He's only famous because he's a bad singer who has some African blood. The media and related white-guilt liberals have to exaggerate his popularity in order to feel better about themselves. You can see this all over the entertainment industry and in politics if you look close enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does politics have to do with whether someone fits or doesn't fit into the notability criteria? As mentioned by the merger proposal underneath this thread, the song is clearly notable, and the precedence is to have a separate article for the song and the piece, thus Tay Zonday is notable enough for his own page. A consensus has already been reached to keep the page 12 years ago. 79.97.111.137 (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

The subject of this article is only notable for the song Chocolate Rain. As it is, having both pages is redundant, as they both have the same information. Man It's So Loud In Here 01:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me, I move for a merger. Jeffrywith1e 03:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree. If the song is notable, the artist should be. A bestselling book would have a notable author. the_undertow talk 04:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does itthe artist is notable? I ask because I'm no expert in wiki policy. It seems to me that the question "who is tay zonday?" will only ever be answered by "you know, the guy who did that song on youtube: Chocolate Rain". In this particular case I think the artist is nowhere near as notable as the song. Man It's So Loud In Here 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Agree. Gloria Gaynor is only known by most as "the woman who sings I Will Survive." If Tay Zonday is a one-hit-wonder, Wikipedia's precedent is to have a separate article about both the artist and the one-hit-wonder that makes them notable. Is Don McLean really more notable than a thousand other lifelong musicians for any reason but American_Pie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.110.113 (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree. If "Chocolate Rain" and Zonday were MTV phenomenons, receiving the same amount of press they have as YouTube phenomenons, there wouldn't be a debate. Zonday handily fulfills WP:BIO. Plus, his other videos have all attracted a significantly large audience. Common sense tells me he has a cult following. Ichormosquito 07:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree. He was recently seen on Comedy Central promoting one of their shows. That sounds pretty notable to me. TheSilverAce 4:43, 20 November 2007

The consensus appears to be to keep the two articles (Tay Zonday and Chocolate Rain) seperate. I will remove the merge templates shortly. RFerreira (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

I've left some comments on the final admin's talk page who closed this article. I warned him that Tay Zonday would be gaining media attention (more so than he has) and IS notable for Wikipedia. Yet, his entry remains protected. Some notible major media that have mentioned him are:

Opie and Anthony
VH1
Jimmy Kimmel Live (Tonight, August 8th, 2007: 12:05am EST)

CNN

There are solo SEVERAL articles written about him on the internet if you just google him.

Jaranda is not responding. Any other Wikipedia Admins able to step in?

IceSage 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was just on Jimmy Kimmel. Imagine the number of people that came to Wikipedia that came to check up on him and found nothing but a snobbishly locked page. What an absolute joke. Wikipedia should be ashamed. 65.30.42.124 15:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has 4 million view on ONE of his songs, hundreds of thousands more on others, he's been on Opie and Anthony and now Kimmel, yet now page for Tay Zonday. thats ridiculous. --194.12 ~5.99.216 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, a couple admins were completely wrong. What that means, I don' know. --Mystalic 18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tay also appeared on G4's "Attack of the Show" days before the Jimmy Kimmel appearance, for his first nationally televised interview.

Is there some method besides a talk page entry of questioning the admins behavior? Because this seemed like a major slip to me. 18:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.22.77.13 (talk)

I think he isn't worthy of an encyclopedic entry. We should delete this. Wikipedia is not a internet meme station. 75.8.47.177 13:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that he doesn't fall under this category and is simply notable for a single event Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event.--Crossmr (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

Can't we find a better source than youtube for the fact that Zonday has appeared on the Opie & Anthony Show and Best Week Ever? Youtube is generally not considerd a reliable sourcew for anything except the fact that a particular video has in fact appeared on youtube, because anyone can upload, and many youtube videos are digitally altered. DES (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20050678,00.html People magazine 65.30.42.124 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sources the Jimmy Kimmel appearence, adn is alredy used for that in the article. But it doesn't mention the Opie & Anthony Show or Best Week Ever. DES (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Picture?

[edit]

I think there should have been a more appropriate picture in the article, seeing as he looks like someone took a shit on his face in the picture. I think it is quite funny, but the article might only get more views for the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.246.84 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-11 06:12

I do agree that there should be a different picture, other than the washed out pictures that he normally has. Maybe one in natural color. Has anyone found one? Anarchy 228 (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't like having doo doo on anyone's face on their Wikipedia headshot. Yesitsnot (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMSA Alumnus

[edit]

Zonday appears in IMSA's "Community Directory" (http://www.imsa.edu/directory/communityDirectory.php). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzanon (talk • contribs) 2007-08-13 17:49:04

Stage Name

[edit]

Why does this article refer to him as Tay Zonday? It's his stage name, not his real name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.217.94 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-13 19:12:48

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names. —Piet Delport 2007-08-14 01:36

Why is this person put into the African-American artist section right away?

[edit]

Seriously what is the logic behind this? If a person is ANY part African extraction is that enough to put them in this category?

If one of his parents is of European extraction isn't he just as much of that extraction? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.22.77.13 (talk) 18:58:09, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Blame Chocolate rain man. Apathy 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bahner?

[edit]

We need a citation on his name - I haven't heard about this Adam Bahner stuff until I read the article, and there's no citation. I say we remove it and any references to it until we can confirm it.ThunderPower 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Tosh.0, he confirms it himself. Don't know how to cite a TV show, but it should be sufficient proof. 96.246.251.157 (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity to the Rick Roll

[edit]

There's no denying that this is considered by some as the new "rick roll," and as such I think that should be mentioned at least somewhere in the article. If you haven't noticed, youtube is full of videos combining rick astley and tay zonday into one video, and tay zonday even did karaoke of Never Gonna Give You Up, probably for that reason. Drewboy64 02:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

I have removed this image for the time being, since it is incompatible with a serious encyclopedia. If User:Noodles2k50 is the copyright holder of that image, he/she should be able to provide an image that does not look like someone poured chocolate syrup on it. --Phirazo 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your removal. 'Incompatible with a serious encyclopedia' is a personal call. More importantly, Tay Zonday is famous for Chocolate Rain which is exactly what the picture is trying to depict. the_undertow talk 21:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A picture with that looks like it is covered in chocolate syrup is really unprofessional and jokey. --Phirazo 22:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. First, let's build a consensus as to the removal of the image. Second, Tay Zonday as a subject is jokey, as his rise to fame is all about the awkward song he created. The picture is a perfect reflection of what Chocolate rain would supposedly look like. Unless you can replace this image with another free image, I see no reason for your removing it based on you non-objective point of view that it is 'unprofessional.' Removing the main picture of an article would generally require consensus instead of a unilateral action. It shows a lack of respect for other editors when certain actions are done without even an attempt at consensus. the_undertow talk 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is mocking him. WP:BLP applies. --Phirazo 00:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have left a message on the original uploader's page. If the uploader is the copyright holder, it should be no problem to get a clean copy. Please leave the image off the page until he responds. --Phirazo 00:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have taken license to assert the creator's intent. Don't you think that is a bit overzealous? Do we need to contact the author and ask if he or she is mocking Tay? To me the picture is fun, not funny and lighthearted. For all we both know it's some promo photo that doesn't even qualify for use. Aight. I'll give. Better safe than sorry. the_undertow talk 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)why are you under the impression this is photochopped? i say it's promotional. the_undertow talk 06:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The effect was obviously added after the picture was taken, thus it is a photoshop. Besides, I see nothing like it on his official web site. --Phirazo 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get that impression at all. Maybe you have a soda fountain filter kit that I do no possess :) In any event, I agree with the idea (also asserted below) that we leave it off for now. the_undertow talk 21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we're building a makeshift consensus here, I'm all for keeping the image off until the copyright holder responds. Ichormosquito 17:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in question was taken by myself for an article in the Minnesota Daily http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/09/06/72163249. The "Chocolate Effect" is really chocolate syrup spread over a window in front of the subject. It is meant to illustrate Bahner's song "Chocolate Rain." The only photoshop done was for color correction. Since I have found no other free image I have decided to provide my own. Lastly this portrait won photo of the week for 9/3-9/7.Noodles2k50 02:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the image as a blatantly incorrectly licensed photo, and removed it from the article. That page has "Copyright 2007 The Minnesota Daily" at the bottom, meaning that it is almost certainly not GFDL or CC. --Deskana (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The website is Copyright 2007 The Minnesota Daily, photographs featured on the website remain the copyright of the photographer who took them. Noodles2k50 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In order for us to use the image, you would have to release it into the public domain. the_undertow talk 01:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unique voice

[edit]

Something about his unique singing voice should be added to the lede and explained, at least a little, soon after. Wasn't there speculation the it wasn't his voice at all because people thought it was an elaborate spoof? Benjiboi 00:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is. The article mentions how he's compared to people like Barry White, James Earl Jones, etc. Randomly stating there was a debate about his actual voice can't actually be referenced in any form and it wasn't really a "hot topic" to discuss. Just some people were like, "Whoa, that's really his voice?" and that's pretty much it. IceSage 07:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious quote?

[edit]

I removed the second half of the following sentence from the Biography section:

"Tay says his voice is often compared to Ru Paul, Paul Robeson, Barry White, James Earl Jones, and Brad Roberts of the Crash Test Dummies, while his look is often described as a casual blend of Kermit the frog and Yoda on crack, respectively."

The citation (and Tay's website) confirms the first part about his voice, but the second part about his look is obviously fake and I couldn't find any source for it. It's so hilarious, though, that I figured I'd put it here in case it did happen to be accurate; I felt bad wiping out all traces of such a funny line from the internet entirely. If someone can find a citation for it, please include it and put the quote back. TNeloms (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you were entertained by it and pleased you let my other one slide ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.56.185 (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see his own website says "With a baritone voice that is often compared to Paul Robeson, Barry White, and Brad Roberts of the “Crash Test Dummies,”...". Interesting comparisons for a "baritone voice" - they're basses aren't they? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Original Songs

[edit]

I'm wondering if there's any information about his most recents songs, such as "Blue On The Fourth Of July", "Say No To Nightmares", "Dying For The Deadline", and the upcoming "Y6K". All (except Y6K) are available at his website. But no mention of them here.

Also, I feel that there so be some mention of the fact that he's not yet signed a music contract due to the conflict with him pursing a graduate degree. Possible source=his blog? I've no doubt that people would come here, much like I did, while looking for any information about concerts and/or CDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.195.197 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of 4chan AGAIN?

[edit]

I remember there being a big deal about 4chan not being mentioned in Tay's article a few months ago, so I decided to see how that was going. But to my surprise (not really), I come back and see all talk page discussion and article references to 4chan have been removed again. 4chan helped propel Tay Zonday to stardom, as he has mentioned before in an interview once linked from the article. Seems to me that some one just plain doesn't like 4chan. Dislike of something that had importance with the article's subject is NO excuse to exclude it. The Running Man (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, we never credit *chans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.252.219 (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll get on that. The Running Man (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tay admitting his success is thanks to /b/ isn't a reliable source? 66.57.20.114 (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you could find the reference where he actually says that. Also, rules one and two. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh...only apply to raids...ShadowUltra (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can talk about 4chan as much as we want. Any time 4chan is applicable, we can mention 4chan. Your cute little rules don't apply here, or anywhere, since 4chan has been widely known for a couple of years now, and got national exposure in the form of that pile of reeking fail known as Attack of the Show. It's not a secret little club, teehee. :3 Anyways, I fixed the page months ago. You know, to include where he mentions 4chan. You know, 4chan as in 4chan.org. The Running Man (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was on Lily Allen's show

[edit]

If anyone thinks this is appropriate for inclusion, feel free to put it there.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Dead

[edit]

Seems someone inserted a recently deceased tag. I've removed it. He's alive. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Park joke

[edit]

Come on. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why is this page locked!!!!!

[edit]

im pissed, why does this guy think he is so special. im going to unlock this page........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.96.113 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll try. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what does that mean.....dont try and act cool on the internet. thats what you just tryed to do was act cool...

this wikipedia page should be unlocked......he is not that important.not that people want to edit this page.....he is nothing. it should be unlocked. the reason you have it locked is to try and make him look special, like he is important, which he is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.96.113 (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck unlocking this page or anypage thats related.Superworms (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aspiring American?

[edit]

Shouldn't that be "aspiring singer" or "aspiring vocalist"? 74.69.86.59 (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Digg Reel Section

[edit]

Do you think that I should touch up on my edit to the article in the Post-Meme area of the article? I think it is missing something but I do not know what.Anarchy 228 (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

[edit]

Even if Tay is notable due to Chocolate Rain, all the information about his post-meme career is just filler that's taking up space. It's not notable and no one cares about it so mine as well delete it or at least severely trim it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.131.57 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not moot?

[edit]

This is a pretty big wiki page for someone only involved in a meme. I mean, what's more important, the meme or the guy behind the site behind it? I think moot, the founder of the meme spawning, popculture altering 4chan, who earned the title number 1 position on Time's 100 greatest people of 2009, deserves a wiki page more than this guy. I would be more interested in moots background than a guy who sang one song that became a meme.NexCarnifex (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke?

[edit]

I have lost a lot of respect for this website. This article should be deleted. I have seen so much bias criticism against orthodox religions and views on this site but yet, this child gets so much veneration over a song no one cares about. Please, be kind to humanity and delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.158.156 (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The many people who feel that strongly about Tay Zonday's worthlessness are a gigantic testament to his notability. 72.39.40.130 (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you dont like what you see, its a wiki: you can fix it. Active Banana (talk)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tay Zonday. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tay_Zonday&oldid=1245201013"