Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Matt Farley (musician)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by valereee (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Matt Farley (musician)

[edit]
(
)

Created by TownesVP (talk) and Milowent (talk). Nominated by Milowent (talk) at 19:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Long enough, new enough, not plagiarized enough, etc. I trust that the issue with the image will be taken care of. But, my dear Milowent, your hook is a bit wordy and doesn't contain any poop, not even the second one. "Farley quit his day job because his poop songs sold so well on Spotify"? Drmies (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies, Good point, I added an ALT2 above. There is probably some horrible streaming/poop joke that could be crafted as well, but learning that this insane poop song was played on NPR distracted me.[1].-- Milowent (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, Milowent; the next song was Diarrhea Bounce Back. Great. Hey, so, well, it's "also" from poop, right? How about one that says "Prolific songwriter MF makes $500 month from a song containing only the word "poop"? Drmies (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I just listened to Diarrhea Bounce Back, Drmies, and my life is changed forever! But, yes, technically, poop songs are only one source of income. Your new alternate is more accurate and also good.--Milowent (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Milowent, you are clearly a newbie here. I'm sorry. I can't write up that hook and approve the nomination--if I write it, someone else has to approve it. *lesigh* So, you have to write it up. Yes, that's how we roll here, I'm afraid... sorry... Drmies (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I've written a new ALT3 hook above. I did some DYKs years ago but typically I forget all processes and rules, plus Wikipedia rules rarely get simpler over time!--Milowent • hasspoken 11:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's to your next 20,000 page views. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT3 sources are not reliable and/or don't mention the song or the money. The first source, which appears to be an interview in a blog, is the only one that mentions these hook points? --valereee (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello Valereee! The $500 a month cite/hook source (which was already approved by Drmies, a far more respectiable person than myself!) comes from NJ.com (current fn 3), which is a major New Jersey media outlet owned by Advance Publications, one of the largest media companies in the United States. E.g., the The Star-Ledger and other publications of Advance all go under nj.com and content is shared among publications. It is not a blog, I certainly wouldn't try to base a hook off a blog. So certainly I appreciate you double-checking on that! The other cites on that paragraph relate to other information in the wikpedia article; fn4 is from an Australian newspaper about the cities and towns songs (an article that was republished in many Australian newspapers). fn5 supports the text about the prom songs, that is from a nationally syndicated U.S. program, Right This Minute. Fn 4 and fn 5 are fine sources for those purposes, but unrelated to the direct hook. Anyhow, the NJ.com article cites the single poop song and the $500 a month figure. Does this make sense to you? Trust me, being an expert on this guy instead of writing more articles on 18th/19th century U.S. popular culture (which I do a lot of) is as amusing to me as it probably is to you. But I felt this is the type of notable but also whimsical content that makes DYK fun from time to time. And to that end, I also noted you changed some references in the article from "poop" to "fecal matter." The songs, however, actually use the word "poop," making it more clinical sounding adds a bit of inaccuracy in my opinion. Thus other mainstream news sources have gone with "poop". Can we go back to poop?[2][3].--Milowent • hasspoken12:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey, Milowent! Don't get me wrong, I think the hook is great, the reason I looked at the sources for it was to be able to promote, as it's one I think would get many clicks. Accept NJ Advance Media as reliable, sorry about that, sometimes these online news sources just look like they can't possibly be undergoing editorial oversight lol. But it's still an interview, and the info is coming from Farley himself. It's the kind of assertion that probably needs sourcing from someone other than himself. I just am thinking that the likelihood someone will challenge it at some point between prep and the main page is pretty high. Did you find this $500 from that single song anywhere else while you were researching? I tried searching 'matt farley' 500 poop and didn't find anything. --valereee (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
ETA: and about the poop vs fecal matter -- I changed that in the Wikipedia voice, but not in the sentences that mentioned things like 'only lyric is the word poop' or whatever, but I have no objection to you changing it back! I just thought it was a bit...informal. This is coming from a woman who sent her college freshman daughter a birthday present of a coffee cup reading "Coffee Makes Me Poop" that I knew she'd be opening in front of her dormmates. :D --valereee (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
valereee, Milowent, the easiest solution here is to ascribe the statement to him, as below. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT3a ... that prolific songwriter Matt Farley says he makes $500 a month from a song containing only the word "poop"?
That fixes it for me, thank you! I wonder if we need someone to review...it seems like a pretty small tweak, maybe doesn't require a new reviewer? I hate to review it myself if it's not necessary, as that would make me ineligible to promote it lol --valereee (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
valereee we could ask Milowent to just copy it, propose it as ALT3b, and strike out ALT 3a--but I don't know if that little runaround is OK. It seems silly though to have to get another reviewer for such a little matter. Maybe Mandarax is bored enough to give it a try? Drmies (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Drmies, I agree, it's silly. If you and Milowent want to do that, or if someone does come along and review, much appreciated! If they don't by the next time I come through looking for this category/length/etc.etc.etc. of hook, I'm comfortable promoting. --valereee (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I have swooped into propose an ALT3A above. valereee and Drmies, thanks so much for keeping me straight on this, I'd hate to get flack for a fun DYK!--Milowent • hasspokenMilowent • hasspoken 20:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The guy says "literally, that's the only word in the song". Well, when someone uses the word "literally", I take that as a challenge. I played the song, and discovered that it's not true. The very first word of the song is "Oh". I dunno if any other words appear, as I couldn't stand to listen to more than a few seconds. While the hook is true in stating what he claims, I wouldn't be comfortable using it as is. Maybe replace containing only the word "poop" with something like in which the word "poop" is sung over and over? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Mandarax, tweak to 'a song containing only the words, "Oh, poop" '? --valereee (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmm I was about to go all "tick" on this, until Mandarax litterally swooped in. I would counter by saying that one doesn't have to consider "oh" a word. An exhalation, a vocalization, sure--but if "oh" is a word, what category is it? And since it clearly isn't a function word, as some would call it, what is its lexical value? Now, our article interjection says it's a "word or expression", which is vague enough already, and it's worthwhile looking at Exclamation: "An exclamation is an emphatic utterance, the articulate expression of an affect." An utterance, yes--but not a word. I think I found a hill to die on--someone pass me a beer from down below. valereee, Milowent, back to you. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Drmies, hahahahaha...I'm willing to declare the within-song vocalization of the sound 'O' as not a word. OTOH, I've already had a glass of wine, so it's very possible I'll wake up with regrets. --22:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, as I said, the hook is true in that it accurately reports his claim, whether his "Oh" utterance is considered a word or not. If you wanna go ahead and tick it, I won't object. BTW Drmies, thanks for using "litterally". I should be spreading that around more to get people familiar with it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Matt_Farley_(musician)&oldid=901511084"