Talk:Walk on the Wild Side (Lou Reed song)

message: How is the song "scatological"? I can't think of a single mention of feces or anything related. I am changing this to "occasionally scatological lyrics" to "lyrics touching on topics such as transexuality and oral sex".-- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it can have that meaning, but (1) its primary meaning is still excrement (2) using this term to refer to people's sexual practices is pejorative and demeaning and (3) this vague term is less informative to anyone who does not already know the song. I am restoring the longer, more precise wording. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scatological"? 

message: So are we going to, like, list every time the Strokes do this song and some Wikipedian happens to hear it or hear about it? - Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We now have three. Presumably, this is simply becoming part of their repertoire. - Jmabel | Talk 03:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed all but one.  If anyone wants to expand on The Strokes' love of the song, reference it, and don't add more than one.Brady Clarke 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Strokes 

message: The AMG lists some 50 covers, if sombody cares; but this should be edited for repeats and disentangled from the old '62 song (Bernstein&David). And  Popa Chubby should be added to it: he played it in 1999 (One night live in NY, 2002)al 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covers 

message: :Image:Wows1.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wows1.jpg

message: I've looked at this page a few times over the past couple of months, and the bottom finally got to me enough that I fixed it. Well, attempted to, anyway. Although, maybe the covers/media references are getting to be too many? It appears to be taking over the article. Granted, this song was influential and is referenced a lot, but it might be getting to the point of too much. 
Joliefille (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizing 

message: heard radio version for the first time, couldn't make out the replacment lyric. Someone who knows what it is should add it to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.200.246 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  radio edit 

message: Given that people don't appear to be able to agree on genre, citations would be in order. - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: FWIW, I think it's interesting that the song was covered by Brazilian artists (who have toured throughout South America, Europe and Japan), as it underscores the international appeal of the original. But if you define significance as a uniquely American quality, what can I say. It's not worth my time to get into it, --Rosekelleher (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reliable source made note of it, that would help establish that it is significant. DonIago (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then find a reliable source, DonIago. You add nothing to wikipedia, all you do is remove sections (in articles you know NOTHING about) and claim they are not relevant. If there isn't a source, do something that would actually help wikipedia and go look for the source yourself. Sennen Goroshi !  (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Sennen goroshi. I will look for some better sources, although it will be challenging as I don't know Portuguese. My impression is that BNegão and Autoramas are pretty successful in Brazil. --Rosekelleher (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance

message: The article says: "The backing vocals are sung by Thunderthighs, a girl group that included founder Dari Lallou together with Karen Friedman, Jacki Campbell and Casey Synge."   The article on Thunderthighs, citing Discogs, says: "The female trio, consisting of Karen Friedman, Dari Lalou and Casey Synge"   Allmusic says: Casey Synge, Dari Lalou, Karen Friedman   The Guardian says: "Dari Lalou, Karen Friedman and Casey Synge"   Jeremy Reed's book says: "Thunderthighs' Karen Friedman, Dari Lalou and Casey Singer..."   And the colored girls say...--Rosekelleher (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So who was Jacki Campbell? And should she appear here? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking me? I don't know, that's why I posted. She didn't appear in any of the sources, so I posted a message here, waited a couple of days, and when no one responded I figured it was a mistake and deleted her name. If anyone wants to add her back in, they can. A source or explanation of some kind would be nice. Rosekelleher (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting - but not conclusive - that the list of members in this article was added in this 2010 edit by an editor, , who has made no other edits but could possibly - from their user name - be a person who had some inside information about the singers.   Some googling strongly suggests that Dari Lallou is now here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've sent an email asking about it. Rosekelleher (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ghmyrtle, I never got a reply. Rosekelleher (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thunderthighs 

message: "using an edited version of the song without the reference to oral sex."
I was alive and listening to FM radio when this song came out, but cannot recall exactly WHAT this editing refers to.  What was it?  Is it replacement lyrics?  Is it just a shorter song?  This article should also, definitively, state EXACTLY when "giving head" was first aired on the public radio in the USA, in this song (date and year).
Starhistory22 (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do the research yourself, grouchy. Rosekelleher (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should have exact time of day as well? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for the claim says: "In the US, RCA took the precaution of issuing radio stations with a cleaned-up version of the song that also replaced the phrase "And the colored girls say" with "And the girls all say." Depending on the regional US market, the song was considered slightly politically incorrect, but DJs tended to play the unexpurgated version regardless."   Unless the OP finds a better source, the article can't go beyond that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So you either got colored girls and head, or you just got girls and no head. Sounds a bit racist to me. Either way, as to when it was "first aired on the public radio in the USA", I'm not sure, whichever station or stations did broadcast it, that they would have wanted to overtly advertise the fact? And even if someone had recorded a broadcast, how would one prove that was the first ever? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT is this referring to? 

message: There may be room in the article for this relevant image. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a collage of 4 apparently unrelated people one of which is a painting. I cannot see how this would improve the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As clearly stated on the image's page at Commons, these people are Lou Reed and three of the his friends (Note: Lou Reed's friends, not mine or anyone's that I know) who are notably mentioned by name in the song's lyrics. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As the collage's file name is not clear that it has anything to do with a particular song maybe it would be interesting to know what the caption would be. Are these people notable and is their relationship with Lou Reed documented and of encyclopedic interest and mentioned in the article?  Also one of the images is a painting which would need confirmation that the artist has released it for copyright. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

text: File:Jackie Curtis Backstage by Gary LeGault.jpg seems to be wholly in the public domain? Is there really any copyright issue with regard to the artist? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Not that I can see. I think that concern was made here before the image was more carefully investigated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I don't see why I could not be added. It looks like it would make an informative eye-catching addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please so do! Since I have a COI problem re info about, & contributions of images by, some persons, I don't know if it would be appropriate for me to add it. I do not know these people, but I do know the person who put the collage together for Swedish WP, to replace an image they didn't want there (of a Swedish group I know performing the song in NYC). Best wishes --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best to wait a couple of days to see if any other editor objects. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection is that it looks horrible.  But, I'm not sure that's a valid reason.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it's not. But, yes it does look a bit "in your face", doesn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If it gets added and kept in the article, I can see to it that it also gets improved at Commons. The purple framing color could go, and the portaits could be enhanced. There are better photos of all of them now than there were 6 years ago. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously...  as well as the purple borders, it seems very odd to me to include a picture of Reed in the same frame as the three song subjects.  If we have good images of those three, and if it is thought important to include their images here (though personally I don't see how it adds to the encyclopedic value of the article, especially as one of them is a painting rather than a photo), why not simply use the three images separately?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Four portraits would be too much I think. Reed knew those 3 people & that's why he wrote about them in the lyric. I'm not interested in a major debate here though, where I'm called on to defend the image at length. I think, conceptually, that it's a good illustration for the article. Anyone who does not think a collage of these 4 faces would be relevant can just say so. It's not for me to decide, nor is it such a big deal. "It looks like it would make an informative eye-catching addition." is the opinion of another user, with which I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Per WP:IUP, the purpose of an image is not to be "eye-catching", it is "... to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter".  In this case, the image does not increase understanding of the subject matter - which is the song and the recordings, not the people named in it.  If people want to know what Holly Woodlawn, etc., look like, they will click on the links.  And, it's inappropriate for Reed, as the song's writer and performer, to be shown in the same way as the three other people.  The longer this discussion goes on, the more I think it's not appropriate to be added to the article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "inappropriate for Reed, as the song's writer and performer, to be shown in the same way as the three other people" (who were his friends, about whom he wrote the song) - Wow! Where did that come from? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: He has a quite different relationship to the song than the other three, so why show them in the same format?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he wrote the song, about them. Obviously. Without them, no song. Without him, no considerable fame for them (though many people know much more about them than about him). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't address my point.  He has a quite different relationship to the song than the other three, so why show them in the same format?  Let me ask another question.  There is already an image of Reed (a contemporaneous one, not the later one that you wish to add) in the infobox, on the record sleeve.  What is the encyclopedic value of including another one of him?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Pass. I'm not on trial here. Too many personal interpretations & opinions. Mine, yours. What's obvious to me is ridiculous to you, etc. Getting nowhere. We need fresh input. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Image addition

message: So how much was Herbie Flowers paid? There seems to be a contradiction in the article. Not only that, but in tonight's Guitar, Drum and Bass, on BBC Four, Flowers said he was paid only £12 for the entire session:   Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  £17 or £34? 

message: I had to remove the mis-applied term “plagal cadence” as well as the claim that the F chord is a “sixth chord.” Neither of these assertions are present in the referenced article, they are original analysis. (That they are each incorrect is of secondary importance. The term “plagal cadence” applies to a specific end-of-phrase phenomenon, not to alternating motion between I and IV. The IV chord is not a “sixth chord” or inversion; the acoustic bass sounds its lowest F, rendering a root position IV chord.) justcary (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmonic analysis