Talk:The Sign (song)

message: Having these audio clips made no sense.  There's no discussion of the similarities in the article.  Is there some claim that one or the other has plagiarized the song?  If so, it should be mentioned in the article and then the clips readded. Kleptosquirrel (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aqua audio and comparison 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Sign (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 http://www.webcitation.org/5hFf8iFDu to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110820065025/http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259376&year=1994 to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259376&year=1994
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Sign (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/20120409063716/http://top30-2.radio2.be/ to http://top30-2.radio2.be/
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) 00:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the entire "In popular culture" section when I found, on review, that all the content was lacking worth. IP user 71.17.39.229 reverted my removal (without explanation), and per the "bold, revert, discuss cycle, I would like to discuss the disputed content. Whether or not you like it, the content of The Sign (song)#In popular culture is subject to all the same standards expected across Wikipedia. The applicable standards expected when adding or maintaining "trivia" in a song article, outlined by various policies and guidelines, have been summarised in WP:SONGTRIVIA; this guidance will act as a measure by which the content of this article's trivia section should be judged.
#  – has a reference that does not discuss the song's relevance or context at all; it is "merely listed or mentioned in passing", which is a SONGTRIVIA no-no.
#  – has an inappropriate IMDB reference that again only mentions the song in passing.
#  – is unreferenced.
#  – is unreferenced and reads like original research.
#  – uses an unofficial YouTube fan channel's video as a reference; the video itself may be a copyright infringement by the channel. There is no demonstration of contextual significance.
#  – has one YouTube reference, that appears to be either unofficial or a primary source, and another "youtubemultiplier.com" reference to a user generated mashup of two videos. The result is entirely original research.
#  – is unreferenced and reads like another case of a total lack of contextual relevance.
None of these use cases come close to meeting the criteria for inclusion and should be immediately removed. Please argue you case(s) for keeping the content by referencing the list number above. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IPCV is pretty clear that 'in popular culture' items must be sourced to a reference that not only discusses their existence but also their significance. The unsourced items obviously fail on that note. IMDb isn't reliable, and the other sources you discuss above appear to similarly fail the necessary criteria. I'm inclined to say this was a good delete, though if the section wasn't previously tagged, it may have been nicer to do that first so that interested editors would have a change to come up with better citations. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to comment DonIago. I appreciate your suggestion of tagging the section first but felt that the content is uncontroversially disposable (apparently I was wrong); I've tagged it now, and linked to this discussion. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite welcome. I suspect what's going to happen is that nobody will make any effort to add/improve the sourcing, but at least now you'll be able to say the section was tagged to no effect. DonIago (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more inclined to find references for unreferenced statements than simply kill-on-sight (I do it quite often), but I couldn't find a worthy scrap for any of these. If someone can demonstrate the value (in all regards) of any of these, then great, but I won't be holding my breath. I didn't remove them on a whim :D Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Good call. Thanks for bringing it to talk. TJRC (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: BRD FTW \o/ I'll be doing pretty much the same thing at Macho Man (song)#In popular culture soon if you wanna watch :D The culling of a wall of crud at Happy Together went well; so far nobody has freaked out. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture