Talk:Lazy Sunday (The Lonely Island song)

message: Shouldn't there be some sort of mention of how difficult the actual video is to find online because of the fact that every idiot and his cousin felt the need to post a spoof.
It's too soon to say whether this will "prove" to be a breakout for Samberg.
:I suppose it could be phrased differently, but it did establish him as more than a guy who, if he's lucky, gets half a dozen lines in an episode. People actually recognize the name now. -R. fiend 21:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion 

message: The content of this article is nice, but is every single segment on SNL worthy of its own article? I don't believe so, but if this information was collected into an article about SNL Digital Shorts and included a bit about The Lonely Island connection as well as a summation of the "Lettuce" short, that would be better. --sigmafactor 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to MSNBC, since the skit was put on the NBC.com website, its been downloaded 1.2 million times.  On top of that, the report also mentioned that there might be t-shirts released aswell.  So yeah, its notable.--Kross | Talk 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, color me amazed that the short has taken off to such an extent. Would anyone else still be up for making a Digital Shorts article once a few more are produced? --sigmafactor 07:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By my count they've had around 5 of them in the last 4 episodes. Might warrant an article soon. --waffle iron 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Though all were subpar in coomparison. Though the Lettuce Council ad was amusing. BabuBhatt 03:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Young Chuck Norris was great, though the two last wekend weren't anything too special. Probably could use an article, if there is any verifiable information available that isn't just first hand accounts of the skits. -R. fiend 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SNL Digital Shorts

message: When I had edited the article, I changed one of the lyrics to "68th to Broadway".  Now I know that in normal speech, when referring to an intersection of 2 streets we say "68th AND Broadway", but if I'm not mistaken, the actual lyric is "to", not "and".  I'm going to change it back, if anyone has any comments, please let me know.  I've listened to the part a few times, and I'm almost positive I have the correct lyrics.
:You're right, they definitely say 'to'. Also, I've made some more minor corrections — take a look. jareha 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think they're saying "and."  I don't hear "to." They're starting in the Village and naming a location on the Upper West Side.  Why would they be saying "68th TO Broadway"?  I neither hear "to" nor think it's plausible.  Moncrief 03:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "68th and Broadway" and "Lazy Sunday" returns 80 Google hits, whereas "68th to Broadway" and "Lazy Sunday" returns all of three. I am happy to take this to Wikipedia:Requests for Comment if it continues to be reverted.  Moreover, there is a large Loews movie theater at 68th and Broadway. In keeping with the realism of the piece, it makes sense they would reference a corner with an actual theater where, in fact, Narnia is playing.  Moncrief 03:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I really don't think it matters at all, but I just saw this discussion and thought I'd listen to it again... they definitely say 68th to Broadway.  It doesn't really matter what Google says--people often mishear song lyrics, especially because "and" makes more sense in this context.  And *does* make more sense in this context, but "to" isn't entirely wrong, either.  It could be short for "take 68th to Broadway".  It's more common for people to use "and" to denote an intersection, but some people say "to" in that sense. Ario 20:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I also think they say "68th to Broadway," as in "take 68th to Broadway."  They have checked Yahoo Maps for the dopest route, and are informing the cab driver of their preference...take 68th to Broadway (rather than going up Broadway to 68th, I suppose).Silarius 23:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But they ARE going UP Broadway to 68th Street. Look at the video, during the "Yahoo Maps" lyric/graphic. It clearly shows a route from A to B going from around Magnolia Bakery to Lincoln Center. Nobody would ever say "68th to Broadway". If they were on 68th, they would just say "To Broadway". And for that matter, almost nobody would take a cab on 68th to Broadway, because it would be a ridiculously short ride; on the Upper West Side, 68th St. is about two or three blocks long, since it is cut short by Central Park and some oddly shaped blocks. They line is clearly "68th AND Broadway", and it's just an acoustic quirk that makes it sound like "to".72.11.217.44 07:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. I vote for it to remain and. Since that is what is said. BabuBhatt 08:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That is exactly right.  They are saying "and". If you listen to it real closely a few times in a row at that exact spot in the song, they almost over-pronounce the "th" in "68th" and I think that's what makes it sound like "to".  And yes, from the village you most certainly take a cab or subway up Broadway to 68th, unless you really enjoy the excercise.  The other way around (68th to Broadway) wouldn't be worth the money in cab fare; they'd probably charge you extra for the inconvenience.  But anyway, they are saying "68th and Broadway" because that's a corner, plus I don't think they are on either street when they get into the cab (that is, if they just left Magnolia's with their cupcakes they are near 11th somewhere);  and usually you presume with all the oneway streets that the cabbie knows the best routes anyway (s/he might take the West Side Hwy and cross over to Broadway later, who knows).  But after about 15 or so listens with the stereo blasting, it is definitely "68th and Broadway".
I just reviewed the part in question roughly 20 times and I have come to the conlusion that it is, in fact, 68th and Broadway.  But if you aren't paying attention, it could be taken as either. Sk8tuhpunk 18:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Lyrics 

message: I have asked for copyright review as I don't think that including all the lyrics qualifies as fair use. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the recent addition of the link to the mp3 file? Is that really appropriate? --sigmafactor 07:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a pseudo-policy about not linking to pages which do copyright violations, so I would tend to remove it.  It's also just a Google search, which we shouldn't be linking to anyway, so I'm going to delete that.  If there is a legit page with the video or the mp3, then we can link to that.  User:Zoe|(talk) 17:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: true that Jaybenad 22:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the pseudo-policy of not linking to pages with copyright violations? Does linking to them actually put wikipedia at risk for a lawsuit (I actually don't know but would suspect not)? savidan(talk) (e@) 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations#List of open requests|Copyright review]] 

message: As other articles have commentary on certain kinds of humor being cross-referenced in other media, I will point out the political website ThinkProgress using "Alexander Strategy Group + Congress = Crazy Scandalicious" at http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/06/scandalicious/ as an article title.  If more instances pop up, there may be enough information to warrant one of these cross-reference sections.  JoeMeyerowitz 17:17, 6 January 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in other media 

message: Um, Red Vines are availble heavily in NYC. Really, I can take pictures! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.208.124.76 (talk • contribs) .
:Please do, I'm sick of that paragraph disappearing and reappearing. --waffle iron 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would seem to indictae you're correct. -R. fiend 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And to confirm you can get them in the city: Stores they can be found at. Locations of CVS stores. Locations of Target Stores.  I am going to remove the paragraph again. (And the Mr. Pibb website link is a dead link.) --waffle iron 05:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Vines 

message: I reverted the recent changes. If by chance someone doesn't knwo what the Chronicles of Narnia is, there's a link at the beginning of the article. -R. fiend 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: The last item in this section is (to put it kindly) inappropriate. If a high school decides to call its talent show "Fowlerville Idol", it is still a high school talent show. This has absolutely no business in this article (an article that is quite frivolous to begin with, at least in the opinion of this editor).Swatson1978 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why doesn't that opinionated editor just remove it? Why dis the article just for an unnecessary item? BabuBhatt 19:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Here all the extra external links.  If any of these are used as references they should be footnoted inline and placed in a "References" section not "External Links".  See WP:STYLE, WP:CITE, and WP:EL. Links follow---
* The Lonely Island
;News and media
* Slate.com, December 27, 2005, "The Narnia Rap, Deconstructed"
* The Village Voice, Dec. 20, 2005: "SNL Narnia-Rap Skit: Better Than Actual Rap?"
* Slate.com, Dec. 23, 2005: "The Chronicles of Narnia Rap: It Won't Save Saturday Night Live, But It Could Save Hip Hop"
* New York Daily News, Dec. 24, 2005: "Video shoots 'SNL' rookie into the show's spotlight"
* New York Times, Dec. 27, 2005: "Nerds in the Hood, Stars on the Web"
* The Hollywood Reporter, Feb. 18, 2006: "NBC Uni to sites: Clip the clips"
* New York Times, Feb. 20, 2006: "A Video Clip Goes Viral, and a TV Network Wants to Control It"
Also all the external links in the article itself should be removed and placed in proper section. L0b0t 20:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: "When Chris Parnell moves his left eyebrow in the second scene" -- can we get more specific than that, such as a time? I don't even know what constitutes a "scene" in this thing. I've just watched it several times and don't see any noteworthy eyebrow-moving from Parnell (or Samberg, for that matter).
:Sorry, the above was me. Upon further consideration, that trivia entry has GOT to be taking the piss. Jerry Kindall 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eyebrow move 

message: I think it's a fair analysis that Lazy Sunday was one of, if not the main, catalyst for the boom in popularity YouTube saw in late 2005/early 2006. If there's a credible source that echoes this thought, we should definitely add it. --Savethemooses 05:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catalyst for YouTube Boom?

message: I thought the deprecated "References in the song" section was informative and useful, as it helped me to understand the allusions and therefore understand the song more thoroughly.  (It also inspired me to learn more about Alexander Hamilton.)  To me, this indicates that such information is more analytical than trivial.
Perhaps most editors still consider the information too-trivial to include in the article, but if not worthy of an "Allusions" section, could it perhaps be in a separate article that provides the allusion information?  Or alternately, can we find an(other) external site with the information that we could link to in the External Links section?  The "Narnia Rap, Deconstructed" site doesn't have all of the information that the deprecated "References" section provided.
Recently, to help them understand the cultural references in the song, I sent my colleagues a link to the Lazy Sunday article, thinking that the "References in the song" explanatory notes were still there, but now I'm not sure where to direct people for such information.  Thanks, and apologies for any non-conforming content here.  (My first editing-discussion post.)  Memetics (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allusions in the song 

message: I checked iTunes and i cant find the song/video anywhere. Was it removed for some reason or does anyone know if they still have it in the iTunes store?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.191.173 (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still available on iTunes 

message: Shouldn't there be a reference to the parodies that the sketch is responsible for creating - like Lazy Muncie?  For instance, if you search for Lazy Muncie, it takes you to this page, but there is no mention either of Lazy Muncie in the entry, nor is there even a mention of any of the parodies.  I think it's noteworthy because not only did the video go viral, and was one of the earlier viral videos made possible by Youtube's growing popularity at the time, but it also created several viral responses.  Scunning (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parodies 

message: Why do the links for NBC and NBC Universal on the article page link to Satan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.92.88.21 (talk • contribs) 17 September 2008
:Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed both links. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: "In this music video, Parnell and Samberg perform a nerdcore hip hop song about cannabis (Lyrically the word chronic, which is a slang term for marijuana
  is involved in the song as a form of word play)[1],  seeing the film The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and lastly eating cupcakes from the Magnolia Bakery."
Few things that just bug me:
Is the rap really Nerdcore? Not everything that's geeky is, and it seems as if that adjective was just tacked on due to perceived geekiness, which is not the only thing that separates Nerdcore from other forms of hip-hop.
The rap certainly references cannabis through wordplay quite heavily, but the song is not really *about* cannabis in the literal sense, at least not enough for it to be referenced in that manner in what seems otherwise to be a general summary sentence.
The layout of the last sentence implies an inaccurate sequence of events: The pair consume the cupcakes at the beginning of the video, long before they go to the theater. 99.55.162.111 (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agreed. "Chronic-(what?)-cles of Narnia" is a pun on a hip-hop expression for cannabis, but the video isn't about cannabis; it's about goofing off on a weekend by buying snacks and watching a kids' movie. And nerdcore rap is about working tech support and playing D&D. What we've got here is a bunch of overinterpretation. --71.146.25.143 (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: Parts of this article are copied nearly verbatim from the New York Times article that is reference 1. For example, here's the NY Times article:
"Then, while their colleagues were rehearsing and rewriting that Saturday's show, the group spent the morning of Dec. 15 shooting their video with a borrowed camera, using the Upright Citizens Brigade Theater in Chelsea to stand in for a multiplex cinema and Mr. Taccone's girlfriend's sister to play a convenience-store clerk. Mr. Schaffer spent the next night - and morning - editing the video and working with technicians to bring it up to broadcast standards. Finally, at about 11 p.m. on Dec. 17, the four learned from Lorne Michaels, the executive producer of "SNL," that "Lazy Sunday" would be shown on that night's show."
and here's the article:
"Whilst colleagues were rehearsing and rewriting that Saturday's show, the group spent the morning of December 15 shooting their video with a borrowed camera. The video used the Upright Citizens Brigade Theater in Chelsea to stand in for a multiplex cinema and Taccone's girlfriend's sister to play a convenience-store clerk.[1] Schaffer spent the entire next night (into the morning) editing the video and working with technicians to bring it up to broadcast standards. In the moments preceding the show's live performance and broadcast, the team learned from Michaels that "Lazy Sunday" would be shown on that night's show.[1]"
I'm not sure what level of originality is required in Wikipedia when taking information from a source, but this level of copying would be unacceptable in an academic context. The New York Times article is a reliable source, and could certainly be used in writing this article, but it would have to be used as a source of information, not exact wording. Since I'm not sure how such copying issues are dealt with, I'm making no changes to the article, in hopes that a more experienced editor will note this and take appropriate action. MayerG (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's plagiarism to copy verbatim without enclosing the source material in quotation marks.  In such cases, go ahead and edit the article, and either quote the offending material, or (better) paraphrase it.  You can also look up who added the unquoted material in the first place and notify them on their Talk page of their mistake.  Memetics (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of article copied from New York Times 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lazy Sunday (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 09:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lazy Sunday (The Lonely Island 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/20051226083552/http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/377294p-320527c.html to http://www.slate.com/id/2133316/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226083552/http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/377294p-320527c.html to http://www.slate.com/id/2133316/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lazy Sunday (The Lonely Island 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  tag to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2005/12/24/2005-12-24__video_shoots__snl__rookie_i.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060225120653/http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/17/nbc_nastygrams_youtu.html to http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/17/nbc_nastygrams_youtu.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lazy Sunday (The Lonely Island 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/20110813070436/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/statusainthood/2005/12/snl_narniarap_s.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/statusainthood/2005/12/snl_narniarap_s.php/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified