Talk:The Pretender (Foo Fighters song)

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 Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chrorus Similarities

the chorus reminds me of that song from sesame street 'one of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong'

Dave Grohl has said he thinks he was subliminally forced in to writing the chorus based on 'One of these things is not like the other'. Dave Grohl felt like he had heard the chorus before and then Chris Shiflett the guitar player pointed out the similarity. Isaacpitt 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problems is that's not the lyric. The lyric is "What if I say I'm not like the others/What if I say I'm not just another one of your plays/you're the pretender". So that kinda shoots down that theory Doc Strange (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say they had the same lyrics, he said that is was based on it. And he's right, Dave Grohl admits that they are similar. Behold y'all. Whether it's encyclopedic or not, I don't know. --Wifidelity (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is encyclopedic. Great song, btw. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riot Line-up

Number 7 of the riot police appears to be the lead singer of Queens of the stone age a band Dave Grohl previously drummed for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.50.211 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it is too although I thought he (Josh Homme) was the lead officer, we see him pulling down his visorBelieverNotALover (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Pretender FF New Single.jpg

Image:The Pretender FF New Single.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Who keeps posting "grunge" and "post-grunge" under genre?

For the last time, its not either, it is simply alternative rock. Please, for the love of god, stop doing this. You are INCORRECT. It is 2008, not 1994. Thank you. 74.85.13.60 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this the only single (incorrectly) listed under "grunge" and "post grunge," and why does it keep being reverted back to it after I change it? I'm not vandalizing, i'm simply restoring the original genre. How do editors not see this? It was alternative rock before, and now for the past few days someone has been listing it under the two aforementioned genres and i'm reverting it back to alternative rock because it is incorrect. I am not being disruptive, the person adding grunge and post grunge is. So, what is going on here? I'd like an explanation please, somebody. Editors don't hesitate to block someone but when someone asks a question for help, they're nowhere to be found. 74.85.13.60 (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because you and several other anon editors...or are they all you?...keep being disruptive and changing this against the consensus of other editors? I don't have other singles' articles on the watch list at the moment, but if you've been hitting them with the same disruptive changes, then perhaps they will need to be visited and reviewed now. Thanks for the heads-up. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This the same person that posted above your comment. Since I got blocked for no reason i've been switching IPs just so I can keep reverting grunge and post grunge back to its original genre, alternative rock. I'm a bit confused to what you're referring to. Are you asking me if i'm doing all the disruptive edits, because I don't have time to do something as stupid as that. Someone else is posting grunge and post grunge, and i'm just reverting it back from multiple IPs, whichever ones aren't blocked at least, which is the result of me getting blocked over "disruptive edits" when in actuality, i'm just restoring its original genre all along. Find out the IP of the person whos been posting grunge and post grunge under the genre, and thats your culprit. Thanks (from whatever IP im using) 74.85.13.62 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and others have been restoring it to "post-grunge", as it should be; whoever is putting it to "alternative rock" is the vandal. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) You're not "restoring" it to grunge and post grunge, because alternative rock has always been there to begin with. Perhaps you are the vandal. I am the one restoring it to its original genre.

2) Every 'singles genre' is listed and has been since the Foo Fighters article was incepted, with Alternative rock. To change one article doesn't make sense, because you're disrupting the genre consistency within each single. Your use of post grunge and grunge (laughably) are outdated and entirely incorrect. Alternative rock is the umbrella term for each and every one of their songs, whether you like it or not. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and stop adding unnecessary information. 74.85.13.62 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus reached over at the Foo Fighters talk page would seem to indicate otherwise. Perhaps you should stop pretending that your own personal opinion is the be all and end all of the musical universe. Tarc (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that consensus regards adding post-grunge to the band genre, not singles, sorry buddy. 38.99.101.130 (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is on the band page, then the band's music articles should be the same, eh? Common sense? Tarc (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if it were unanimous, but it surely is not, which is why there is a consensus. The person above is right, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Theres no point in debating over what they are and aren't when alternative rock suits all needs, without any debate. The consensus if you have not seen it recently is actually tied. Spooky873 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see both sides of your guys case. How about "Alternative Rock"/"Post-Grunge" then everybody is happy. Post-Grunge is the type of music that erupted after the Grunge boom, so this is technically Post-Grunge, plus, it is also Alternative Rock. Just use both of them!--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]