Talk:Straight Outta Lynwood/Archive 1

message: Any guesses on what it's going to be? I think it'll be a parody of "American Idiot", and be called "American Idol." :P Cloud13 14:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be called "American retard" and be about President Bush. haha. dposse 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use this talk page to discuss improving the article not guessing songs for the album. Thank you. --WillMak050389 16:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Day Parody 

message: I don't see a problem with listing songs that other sources have revealed.  The firs four songs were revealed in a MySpace bulletin by Chamillionaire, and the lead single even has an article despite the title not yet being revealed by Al.  I think it's pretty safe to say that the animators who Al has commissioned to make music videos for him are reputable sources for this information.  --Maxamegalon2000 12:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songs Unconfirmed by Al 

message: Last time I was there, the World of "Weird Al" Yankovic forums seemed to believe in the authenticity of this supposed Sony promotional flier.  I personally think it's probably legit, but that it's also not reputable enough for Wikipedia.  I'm willing to go with whatever the consensus is, but I think we either have to accept the leaflet as an appropriate source, and assert in the article that "Polkarama" is a confirmed track, or reject the leaflet, in which case we don't have any polka information.  Thoughts? --Maxamegalon2000 03:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Leaflet 

message: Sony BMG confirmed this tracklist!
I don't know why people still insist that that tracklist is fake, especially when some songs from it have ended up doing the rounds on the Internet already.  Pretty damn legit to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.12.118 (talk • contribs) 
UPDATE - I added "Canadian Idiot" to the songs list; there's no reason for any doubt, considering this song is already circulating, and the voice is obviously Weird Al's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.12.118 (talk • contribs) 
:I would recommend that people consider that many songs released on the Internet are falsely attributed to Al, and many of them sound like Al.  Also, it's not like Al's the only one who came up with the idea of "Canadian Idiot".  A quick Google search should make that obvious.  Even Uncyclopedia was able to come up with that one.  Of course, this doesn't mean that the song in question isn't from Al, but we must consider the reliability of sources. --Maxamegalon2000 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I implied any lack of intelligence on your part; I was merely noting, as is mentioned at "Weird Al" Yankovic, that many songs have been falsely attributed to Al, many of which are claimed to really really sound like him.  I'm sure you read the comment above, that "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking."  Even if you were to send me the song, it would still not be independently verifiable that 1)The song is by Al, and 2)The song is on the album.  I don't think I'm being "ridiculously impossible", but rather citing Wikipedia policies regarding verifiability and reputable sources.  Personally, I believe that Canadian Idiot is a song on the album, but just because you and I believe something doesn't mean that Wikipedia should say it.  I'm sorry if you feel that typing in capital letters, which you have removed from the page, improves the quality of your argument. --Maxamegalon2000 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you may be confused.  I have listened to the song and agree that it is almost certainly by Al, and almost certainly going to be on the album.  I have never asserted that the song is fake.  I'm guessing, however, that you haven't read the relevant policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:No original research.  Even if the woman's post has been correct so far, it is not Wikipedia's place to assert that the rest of it will be as well until another source asserts it first.  Even if the forum were referred to as official, there has been no word from Al or any other official or reliable source regarding the song.  As for "Close, But No Cigar", sources agree that the song exists and that there is a video for it, but not that the song is going to be on the album.  This is the standard of sources that Wikipedia insists on.  If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies, this article is not the place to express them.  --Maxamegalon2000 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Verifiability.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, as you can see from above, such useless things as "official websites" and "press releases" do not follow WP:V. To comply with WP:V, you must get the signature of Weird Al, his band, every artist parodied, their friends and direct relatives, and their pets. (Wikipedia: Imposing Red Tape Since 1998, Just Because We Can™) - Kookykman|(t)e 22:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracks Leaked - Official Enough For You? 

message: I really don't think we should be invoking WP:IAR to go against WP:V.  I'd like to make it clear again that I have the same beliefs about the accuracy of the snopes.com tracklist as everyone else, but that the question here is one of Wikipedia policies.  The snopes.com tracklist comes from a message board, which is not a reputable source.  The corroborating evidence is certainly becoming more strong every time new information surfaces, but to infer that this leads to a greater credibility for the tracklist is original research, which is also not allowed.  I do not think the article suffers at all if we wait for better sources for the information.  David Lovelace has indicated that the animators for the music videos have been given permission to reveal the titles of the songs they are animating, so it is likely that there will be plenty of information before the album is released. --Maxamegalon2000 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] 

message: A link was posted on the main article today (diff) containing a stream of White & Nerdy. I know nothing about this website (HipHopDX.com), so does anyone know if this stream is legal? I don't see anything about user-uploaded music on the site so I'm  leaning towards yes...but it seems like an odd place for Al to premiere a song is all. -CapitalQ 11:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: illegal. it was not premired on there. looks like some fan jut trying to spread the leaked song. --Weirdal 17:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof? -CapitalQ 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White & Nerdy stream - legal? 

message: Does anyone know what the resolution and bits per sample will be on the 5.1 mix?  I'm hoping something like 24-bit 96 kHz, but it might end up being 16/24-bit 48 kHz.  If anyone knows, please add this tidbit to the page.  koolman2 11:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much all known information regarding the release is listed on the page. Try checking the specs for other recent Sony DualDiscs with 5.1 mixes. -CapitalQ 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual Disc Specs 

message: I've removed the "style parody of. . ." lines in the track listing. Some of them, of course, are obvious (the Cake and Rage Against the Machine ones in particular), but it's original research to put it in the article without citations that they are, indeed, style parodies of those artists. As I understand it, though, this album will actually credit the style-parody inspirations (unlike previous "Weird Al" albums), so once it comes out the article can use the album credits as a source. --keepsleeping  slack off! 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style parodies 

message: Year_of_the_Dog...Again
Album covers look similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.138.194 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree, but let's be on the lookout for a source that says so, otherwise we probably shouldn't add it.  --Maxamegalon2000 02:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian Wilson is still mentioned in the song description section.  I guess we're not supposed to have so many notes in the tracklist section.  As for "Black Dog", I suppose now that the album's been leaked it would be hard to deny that fact.  I'm kinda torn myself, so I won't revert any changes either way. --Maxamegalon2000 02:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DMX

message: How fair is it for the leak date to be posted in album articles?  This only encourages piracy.
Not at all.  People will download it regardless of what wikipedia says.  They'll just keep searching the file sharing programs anyway.  --66.169.14.5 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leak date. 

message: Two songs ("Feel Good Inc." and "Slither") are *NOT* included on the final pressing of the CD that will be availble in stores on September 26th. I made a note on the tracklist section. (I have a OFFICIAL RETAIL copy of the album (and the CD is VERY good!!) so do NOT try and change this.
*That's not supported by Yankovic's own website, which lists both of those songs as part of "Polkarama!". --keepsleeping  slack off! 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it were true, it's not verifiable. --Maxamegalon2000 02:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, it's not verifiable. --Maxamegalon2000 03:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't hear any "feel good"s or "yeah"s? -CapitalQ 14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polka Tracklist is NOT correct 

message: I think it sounds most like "Bulls on Parade" and "Killing in the Name".
:It's definitely got parts of "Killing in the Name" in it. It may not be a parody of the song, and now I realize why, but I still think it should be noted that the song is musically based on this/these RATM songs. noroom 11:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no "may or may not" about it, it borrows elements from specific songs, but it is most decidedly not an outright song parody, it is a "style parody".  Nearly all of Al's style parodies borrow elements from specific songs, if we're going to list them for this track on this album's article, then we should probably list them for every song in every album's article, and that would just be dumb. - Ugliness Man 13:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would be dumb. Like you said, Al often takes the music from other songs and adds his own lyrics to them. If users could read what the album offers musically, they might be more interested in it. I know I would be. noroom 20:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll Sue Ya! 

message: "Sorry, but Lynwood is not a 'middle class suburb.' Its actually a low class, crime infected city. I should know, I'm from there." This has no place in a Wikipedia article. I can't seem to find it in the Edit page. Will someone please take this out? If Lynnwood indeed is what this person says, could someone change the entry and delete this anyway?
:With the article for Lynnwood saying that 22% of the people live in poverty, I'll take his word for it and change the article to say lower class. Michael Greiner 00:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lynnwood Demographic 

message: Source taken from 
INTERNATION-AL
Even though "Straight Outta Lynwood" is being released on Sept. 26 in the U.S., we just found out that because of a mix-up at the label (don't ask) it will not be released in Australia until Sept. 30 and it will not be released in Canada until Oct. 3. Sorry. Also, we're being told that outside of the U.S., it will NOT be a DualDisc, but rather a separate CD and DVD - which unfortunately, for some reason (*sigh*... don't ask) will not include the 5.1 or instrumental mixes. (FYI, the DVD side of the U.S. DualDisc is region-free.) And we still don't have any idea yet whether or not it will be officially released in the UK... but we'll let you know as soon as we do.
Michael Greiner 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In regards to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Straight_Outta_Lynwood&curid=6064795&diff=77371076&oldid=77370895 this edit] 

message: Whats the point? We will all find out when it releases tomorrow (Sept 26). Then you'll see. That WE were all right. Hee hee. Koolgiy 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right, of course.  In a few hours, I expect most of the uncited tags to be removed.  And in case you aren't kidding, of course the editors of this page don't deny the truth of a lot of the uncited statements.  I'm sure many editors here are very familiar with the album; I certainly wouldn't let anything stay in the article, uncited or not, that I wasn't pretty sure was true. --Maxamegalon2000 01:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: is the source. --Maxamegalon2000 03:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Dog is rerecorded, not sampled 

message: Weird Al said in his Dr. Demento interview (9/25/06) that Weasel Stomping Day apes the style of animated TV specials from the 1960s.  I made the edit, but I'm afraid I don't know how to add a cite tag. --Jere7my 00:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style for Weasel Stomping 

message: I've edited this several times, but some butt-munch keeps deleting it. This is the sentence I posted in the list:
"Contains Samples of "Killing In The Name" and other various songs by Rage Against the Machine.
At about 1:10 of the song, it uses the exact same riff as at 1:16 of Killing In The Name.
Don't believe me, check it for yourself. Me I'm going to put that information back in the list for the third time. Don't delete it again. Or I will find you and... discuss it in a polite and sensible manner.
:Maybe I'm confused, but Sampling (music) even lists Al as an artist who doesn't sample.  I understand sampling to involve taking the actual sound recording from one song and using it in another, which is certainly not the case here.  Because I'll Sue Ya! is a style parody of RATM, it makes sense that certain parts of the song sound like parts from various RATM songs.  Another word used to describe style parodies is Pastiche, the article for which also mentions Al.  So, I don't think Al "sampled" any RATM songs, even if parts of I'll Sue Ya! intentionally sound like parts from RATM songs. --Maxamegalon2000 02:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maxamegalon2000 is correct, the song does not contain any samples of anything.  Your entire basis is your opinion, and your opinion is based on listening to the song and making an assumption.  There is no concrete evidence to support your theory.  The riffs in the song are very similar to riffs in RATM songs, because that's what a pastiche is all about, however there are no actual samples.  You need to learn a few things about how Wikipedia works, this isn't a fansite.  First of all, using allcaps anywhere is annoying and inappropriate, even moreso in section titles.  Second, suggesting that you are just plain right, and demanding that your additions be left alone is immature, misguided and just generally a bad idea.  Third, if you're going to claim to be to be such an expert and someone who's generally right about everything, you should at the very least learn how to sign your comments.  In summary, you need to offer tangeable, verifiable proof of this (non-existent) "sampling" if you wish to leave it in the article (which isn't going to happen, so please give it up). - Ugliness Man 11:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize this isn't relevant to this particular discussion, but I'm pretty sure the faux "ha ha ha ha ha" laughing in I'll Sue Ya is a spoof of the "ha ha ha" laughing in "Mic Check" by Rage Against the Machine. - Ecksem Diem 23:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll sue ya! 

message: I think there's a physics error in the lyrics of Pancreas.  The attraction between my pancreas is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, not just the distance as the song says.  Worth mentioning?
:No. Michael Greiner 01:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the song itself had an article, I could see that fact being mentioned, but I agree with Michael that it's not particularly notable to the album.  Note that I am not suggesting that there should be an article for the song.  As I think users are noticing, not all Weird Al songs merit articles. --Maxamegalon2000 04:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpancreatic Attraction 

message: This article was nominated for deletion . The result of the discussion was delete, and redirect to Straight Outta Lynwood.
Per the discussion above, I have added the discussion to this page. The history is preserved at Talk:Canadian Idiot. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We allow shameless links like this?  Removing tag.--Asams10 18:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am for the deletion. There is no point for an article for every single song. Because 'many people listened to it' is not an argument.--Soetermans 20:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the harm in keeping it? It exists, and if someone's bothered to start a page on it then we might as well keep it. Besides, more information about artistic intent might come around in future. Excalibur2211 08:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: keep it, hundreds of other albums have individual articles for their songs. do not delete. Barcode 03:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Plenty of other song pages exist.  Weird Al song pages are helpful if for no other reason than to name the song (or genre, TV show, movie, current event, etc.) being parodied.  In this case, I had never heard of the song "American Idiot."  The page helped me.  Keep it. - RazorChicken 21:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I clicked there and on the bottom it says "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it."  So if someone has a further comment to make, do they do it there or here? - Ugliness Man 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here, even though for anything to be done, a deletion review would have to be undergone since the debate is closed. Michael Greiner 03:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion from [[Canadian Idiot]] 

message: Why are we deleting this? Whats the point? ITS A SONG ON THE ALBUM! Its EVEN ON THE WEIRD AL SITE! Why dont people get it. So many people have listened to it due to the fact that Straight Outta Lynnwood was leaked and is found on Torrent sites. Koolgiy 18:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We allow shameless links like this?  Removing tag.--Asams10 18:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am for the deletion. There is no point for an article for every single song. Because 'many people listened to it' is not an argument.--Soetermans 20:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the harm in keeping it? It exists, and if someone's bothered to start a page on it then we might as well keep it. Besides, more information about artistic intent might come around in future. Excalibur2211 08:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: keep it, hundreds of other albums have individual articles for their songs. do not delete. Barcode 03:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Plenty of other song pages exist.  Weird Al song pages are helpful if for no other reason than to name the song (or genre, TV show, movie, current event, etc.) being parodied.  In this case, I had never heard of the song "American Idiot."  The page helped me.  Keep it. - RazorChicken 21:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I clicked there and on the bottom it says "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it."  So if someone has a further comment to make, do they do it there or here? - Ugliness Man 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here, even though for anything to be done, a deletion review would have to be undergone since the debate is closed. Michael Greiner 03:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: It seems to me, that now that the album is out in stores (I'm listening to it right now!), that we can archive alot of the discussion on this talk page about "what will the tracks be". It's getting rather large in any case... --Quadraxis 19:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. How can we go about doing this? -CapitalQ 22:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up the Talk Page 

message: Like how long does it usually take? -TheBird
30 days after a record is released, it becomes eligible for certification. From there, a record company can request an sales audit for a fee. After the audit is completed, the album will be certified (depending on whether or not the album sells enough copies to be certified). Since the album came out 9/26/2006, I would look for certification information sometime in November. I think the RIAA links can explain better than I can.
 --UD490 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When do y'all think the RIAA will certify his album status? 

message: When I heard that Weird Al would do another polka medley, I knew he'd do Franz Ferdinand and the Killers. However, I didn't think he'd do Kanye West. I actually thought he'd parody Gold Digger. - Ndrly 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polkarama

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but WP:ASR does not prohibit the mention of Wikipedia in an article, provided that it is relevant. We are allowed to reference Wikipedia, but not anything in the Wikipedia: name space. In this article, linking to Wikipedia would be appropriate, whereas linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias would not. Then again, my interpretation could be way off. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the question is whether or not the mention of Wikipedia in the song is notable enough to mention in an article about the album.  I don't think it is; Wikipedia one of dozens of things mentioned in the song, and not any more notably than any other thing. --Maxamegalon2000 04:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three Star Trek refrences (Earl Grey Tea, Klingon, Kirk or Piccard). WHy isn't that mentioned instead of Wikipedia. I don't think it should be mentioned either but if we mention Wikipedia, which has only one line in the song, we should mention star trek. The Placebo Effect 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:ASR