# Talk:Part of Me (Katy Perry song)

Katy Perry doesn't appear as a co-writer on this link
, cuz ASCAP is messed up lately. If you search for Katy Perry as writer here, this page shows up, saying "Works written by: [Katy Perry as you searched for her] " and the list of songs written by Katy Perry [Part of Me is here], but if you click one of the songs Katy is not listed anywhere as a writer, thats why is ASCAP.com messed up. For exmample if you click on Thinking of You, it has no writers, although it was solemny written by Perry, confirmed on the album booklet and here. So shes IS a co-writer on Part of Me, as she is on songs which she did with the same songwriters for the album. I hope you get it, I dunno why is ASCAP is so messed up lately. I dunno why is it maybe cuz shes is listed as a performer or something happenened with her credits. There is NO way she didn't write ANY of these tracks as ASCAP says, so ASCAP.com is the one to be blamed.
Tomcatpurry (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the writing process of the 4 songs, Last Friday Night, California Gurls, Part of Me and and Teenage Dream like that, cuz this source was reffering to it as well, also I added the name of the 4 co-writers to that sentence as there were 2 other tracks on the album (The One That Got Away & E.T. link) which were co-written by Perry, Luke & Max, but NOT Bonnie.
Tomcatpurry (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 

I think we now have enough information that we could add a "Reception" section? Does anyone else agree?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please! She invented the blue color?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.62.117.187 (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 

Is it definitely D Minor? It seems more like F Major to me. --147.114.44.209 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Part Of Me" was not produced by Dr. Luke & Cirkut, but by Dr. Luke & Max Martin. I just received the Promo-CD from the UK and it says so on the sleeve. Please someone edit. Thx. :-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.135.156 (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 

Video section contains the statement ".The hoodie as well as the tea she buys inside may be an homage to Trayvon Martin, who was wearing a hoodie and carrying tea and Skittles when he was shot on February 26, 2012."
This is unsourced, and since the video was filmed before the Martin shooting, clearly nonsense! This is obviously the editor's own fantasy. Please remove  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.33.220 (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 
 Done --GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 18:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please add Platinum for Part Of Me in Australia http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1U50 --93.229.106.36 (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your contribution - Happysailor (Talk) 16:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The lead needs to be rewritten and expanded. There should be no sourced on the lead per WP:LEAD, and I see nothing regarding the critical reception. - Saulo Talk to Me 13:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I added some more information and removed some citations (teman13 (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC))
It looks much better. I'll do some fixes myself. - Saulo Talk to Me 00:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thanks i put alot of work into it! haha teman13 (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How come there isn't a Credits and Personnel? i see it on other song articles, but not this one. 24.15.108.134 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
[[Category: ]]

I'll be doing a copy edit on this over the next couple of days. I'll advise if there's anything that needs attention. I had a couple of quick points related to the FA review:

I saw the debate over a certain blog, and whether it's a reliable source. You asserted that Yahoo! is a reliable source. I don't believe that Yahoo! exerts any editorial control, and you might be confused as to what a "reliable source" is. News agencies like CBS, Reuters, and the Wall Street Journal are counted on to deliver accurate news. Because of the standard to which they're held, these organizations are considered trustworthy; a reader can be confident that their facts are correct. A blogger can print anything- he can tie the story to Sasquatch, and nobody cares, because nobody expects factual correctness from a blog. On the other hand, it's valid to cite a blogger's opinion about something, as long as it's presented as opinion and not as fact. The bottom line to all this is that you're both right: you can't claim Yahoo! (actually, wasn't it about.com? They're under the New York Times and should have some level of editorial control, though it doesn't matter in this case) as a reliable source of news, but it's perfectly OK to quote a blogger's review as an opinion, which you did. The reviewer was so hung up on the blog citation that he failed to notice that it was used correctly. It should never have been an issue, so if this goes back up for review and somebody makes noise about it, point them here:)
A reviewer mentioned "original research" regarding the chord progression. There's a citation now, but I don't believe that you really downloaded that sheet music and read it, because in decades as a musician, I've never seen an "A#" chord. It exists technically and theoretically, but not so much in practice, and doesn't belong in that key. I think you plugged in a citation just to cover your tracks, but you've never actually seen the sheet music. If you have sheet music that actually uses that chord, then it's almost certainly not an official version. Find the real sheet music, look at it, cite it, and fix your mistake. Dementia13 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your input and I agree about Yahoo! now i guess, but as far as the source for A# I added the source way before the FA review and the link to the music sheet but someone went in and changed it. Nn the website it said it was an A# so I put it in the article. I saw it used on other articles and I thought that it was reliable but I guess its not, thanks for letting me know.   teman13  TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 21:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The website cited gives a single-page preview, and names that chord as "Bb", which is the correct chord for that key. One could technically say that the two chords are the same, but there are few if any practical contexts where an "A#" chord would fit. Also, I believe that it would be better to cite the sheet music as printed sheet music than as a digital download. The published music is the published music, regardless of format. You've got the authors, the year and the publisher. Wikipedia may have a template that you can use to cite sheet music, though I don't like these and prefer to use a standard academic citation style. Some reviewers throw a fit if you don't use these awful templates, but there's actually no official Wikipedia standard for how any citations are supposed to be formatted, only that you are consistent within a page. Dementia13 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes that makes sense, I will look and see if there are any templates but if I don't find any I will use the typical format to cite it.  teman13  TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 23:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Later in the page, I see popcrush.com cited as a factual source. Again, it's a valid source for opinion-based citations like reviews, but if a reviewer challenges its veracity regarding reported news and events, you're going to have to provide some evidence that it is a trustworthy news source. If the fact is both a) true and b) notable, it stands to reason that a news source with stronger credentials has reported it. Dementia13 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Taking a break here. A consistent error: when you use a quotation, you introduce it with a comma, not a colon or semicolon, like this:
stating, "We recorded the entire album in a single take over the course of 45 minutes".
Section "Chart Performance": I cut the final phrase " for the issue dated March 3, 2012" from the first line. It referred to Billboard charts for that week. Why is there no citation? Naming the date of the issue doesn't function as a citation, and it flows poorly in the sentence. Dementia13 (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Also under "Chart Performance": one sentence says that it was in the top 10 for 10 weeks, and another says it was there for 12 weeks. Both use the same citation, which links to a page that doesn't directly state how many weeks it spent in the top 10. You might need to find the Hot 100 chart for the last week it was in the top 10, cite that instead, and remove the faulty statement. Dementia13 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, Will do.   teman13  TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, it looks like one was US, the other Canadian. You need to dig through the US and Canadian charts, and support those two facts with separate citations, because the one you provided does not include that information. Dementia13 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The single is only available by digital download, not in any physical format? It feels awkward to write about sales in terms of "downloads" rather than "copies". Dementia13 (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Section "Reception and Propaganda Allegations": the Ethan Sacks quote has "Russel Brand". If that's your typo, it needs fixed, but if it's Ethan Sacks' mistake, you need to leave it so, and place a [sic] after it.
The song was only available in physical copies in the UK in the CD single format and the Russell Brand quote marks was my mistake, I'll remove it.   teman13  TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 02:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Same thing with the James Montgomery blockquote in the same section: "tact" should be "tack", and if the mistake was in the original, needs to be followed by [sic].
Found the original, tagged with  [sic]. Dementia13 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Section "Live Performances":
On February 12, 2012, Perry performed the single live for the first time along with "E.T." (2011) at the 54th Grammy Awards.
Why is "E.T." mentioned? That sentence implies that this was also the first live performance of "E.T." Was that the case? If so, it needs to be clear. If not, don't even mention "E.T.": your article's not about that song, so you only introduce distracting, irrelevant information by mentioning it. That's essentially trivia, which Wikipedia hates. Dementia13 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, well the performance began with "E.T." but she stopped halfway to start "Part of Me".   teman13  TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 14:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
This may seem nitpicky, but it needs to be clear:
Perry, wearing a metallic bodysuit with the appearance of golden armor and a blue hair color,
This suggests that the bodysuit, not Perry, had the appearance of a blue hair color. Was blue hair some kind of attachment to the bodysuit, or did Perry herself have blue hair? If the blue hair was on Perry, then that needs set apart with a comma. That in turn would create an awkward sentence, so it would best be reworded like "Perry, with blue hair and a metallic bodysuit with the appearance of golden armor," Dementia13 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Perry had blue hair.   teman13  TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 17:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
"Live Performances", paragraph 3: The performance was similar to Perry's previous performances and the song's video and was pre-taped due to Perry being sick.
This needs more explanation. How did she know to tape that in advance, did she plan on getting sick? This gets tricky: it needs to be acknowledged that this violates common sense, but words like "allegedly" can create a POV issue. Here's where it would help to dig a little deeper with the research: was there a news source that reported this in more detail? Was there a blogger who pointed out that somebody was obviously lying? This, BTW, is a situation where it's appropriate to cite a blog, because anybody can make an observation. What matters to Wikipedia is that a) it was published, and b) preferably in a blog with reputation/notability. Dementia13 (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. Be careful about adding much new content, which would also need copy-edited. I got your message with the barnstar, thanks! Dementia13 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Part of Me (Katy Perry 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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 08:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Part of Me (Katy Perry 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902102424/http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1U50 to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1U50
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DaMNbmDo to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6GuWJIOEO to http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?content_selector=riaa-news-gold-and-platinum&news_month_filter=5&news_year_filter=2013&id=C19496E7-CEC0-C453-D8A1-BD80E56E610F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 00:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)