Talk:Mandatory Fun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leaked info[edit]

I don't really know how to edit the source of the article, but 'Foil' is a parody of Royals by Lorde. Source: I'm listening to the album :P 2605:6000:EC47:D600:2587:32E0:CBD:65DB (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We require that the content be verifyable by legal means. Since the album is not out but clearly leaked, we have to wait till Tuesday to add any of this information. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point the physical CDs have shipped early to some customers, so I may just be bold and cite the liner notes to avoid two days of revert scuffles. jhsounds (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parody vs. Pastiche[edit]

Pastiche is the proper term for a "style parody." And it is the term Yankovic most often uses for his originals which imitate a certain style. Anyone have a problem with me altering all the "style parody" wording to the correct term? Jasendorf (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like quite a big job, the phrase 'Style Parody' is used on lots of "Weird Al" related pages on Wikipedia, not just this one. You will need to be consistent by using only 'Pastiche' throughout the encyclopedia's pages on Al if you decide to go ahead. Good luck :) --Jonie148 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't know if that's as clear as "style parody", to me the term pastiche suggests a collage or hodge podge of different works by an artist as opposed to a single hommage. Which may describe some style parodies by Al, but not others. Walterego (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background, 3rd paragraph[edit]

The paragraph mentions him getting permission from Pharrell to parody 3 songs. The third was Pharrell's "Happy", it's incorrectly stated right now as Iggy Azalea's "Fancy". 99.107.199.30 (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was my bad on the song inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those pictures?[edit]

Seriously, how are those relevant at all? I don't need a picture of Iggy Azalea to know that Al asked her to parody a song. What's the point? Trying to pad out the text? And yet there's not even a single picture of Al here. I would remove them. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least with Azalea and Williams, they personally are talked about (more than they were just target parodies) about getting permission, so they are appropriate. As to photos of Al, he's indicated he will tour, and I would not be surprised if we would see him in free images in that military uniform or one of his "Tacky" outfits (and potentially others). We have him on the cover, of course, and if we had more images of Yankovic that tie to the album better, including them would make more sense, but right now, these images seem fine. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring this issue up again before going on an editing rampage. I know that everyone has a different writing style, but the pictures, while relevant, do not fit within the article. I don't write an article on a village church and insert pictures of random stain glass windows from a church in Kenya or pictures of similar gravestones because they are similar, because it makes the article look like it was written by a five yr old. The same as this article should not have pictures of random propaganda from Vietnam in it.The pictures of the artists are pointless and do not add to the article as they do not depict weird Al meeting the artists, but just pictures of the artists at random points in times. I'm sorry for the rant, and this is only my opinion. HamishDS (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Statement[edit]

The song "Mission Statement" emulates the style of Crosby, Stills & Nash, with the lyrics citing a series of corporate buzzwords and executive jargon. Zaleski noted that the song imitates the band's layered harmonies and incorporates elements of "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes".

I don't know about any other editors here, but I also heard a bit of "Carry On" in the beginning of the song as well. Anyone else think this should be added? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an outside source making this observation, we can go ahead and add it. Otherwise it could be considered original research. jhsounds (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and to clarify: sourced observations would be appropriate within the article prose, not the track listing. Otherwise it would conflate critical analysis with what the liner notes actually say. jhsounds (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABC World News (7/21)[edit]

Al's going to be on a segment of ABC World News Tonight tonight (7/21), as teased by this twitter image: [1], which is a quote I definitely feel we need to add but would like more context to expand. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending for GA[edit]

I would suggest we can likely push this as a GA at this point - it's clearly on the way to an FA but I think we'd like to see what possible Grammy noms it gets by the end of the year to see if it gets that recognition then, and we'll likely need a proof read.

In part, if we can get this to GA, then there is a clear DYK we can offer: "...that Mandatory Fun is Weird Al Yankovic's first Billboard 200 #1 hit from his 32-year career?" (or soemthing to that degree).

I can lead the GA but this should be a conom with at least Jhsounds whos done an excellent job keeping the information sorted. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead with the nomination process yourself if you like. I'm mainly concerned with giving the article a thorough once-over when I get some free time. jhsounds (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Composition section[edit]

I might as well clarify this: the "Composition" section is supposed to be a general description of the album's structure. Splitting each song into it's own paragraph as a track-by-track breakdown is pointless, especially since five of the songs already have their own articles. Please also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which points out that short paragraphs are discouraged. Thanks. jhsounds (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; we also have the same approach on the videos section grouping them into a few paragraphs instead of breaking out each one. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Park Express[edit]

As it stands, the comment either way is probably technically original research; but I think the song owes at least as much to Harry Chapin as to Cat Stevens. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Yankovic himself specifically mentions Cat Stevens, and only Cat Stevens, connected to that track. Perhaps he absently worked in a Chapin influence, but that would need either him acknowledging that, or a secondary source mentioning the connection to Chapin even if it was unintentional by Yankovic. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mandatory Fun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The lad searches the night for his newts (talk · contribs) 02:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'd suggest adding citations to the lead, infobox and image captions. I also have a question about the record label. Most of Yankovic's albums were released on Volcano Records, and this one was released on RCA. Should there be any mention of this in the article? The article says that the title of the album has some connection to the end of his recording contract. Wasn't the contract with Volcano rather than RCA outright (who are listed as a distributor of Volcano)? And the lead states something that is not elaborated on later on, that "Due to the completion of his record contract obligations and the success of the video strategy, Yankovic has suggested Mandatory Fun may be his last traditional album, switching to more timely releases of singles and EPs of his songs." There's no discussion of this in the article, and at one point in the article, it quotes Yankovic as saying that digital sales has made singles pointless, essentially making every track he releases a single. So, is this wrong, or is there some other clarification that can be made? The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mandatory Fun/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

@Masem:A few issues:

  1. File:World October revolution poster.jpg = Needs informatiom template filled out at Commons.
  2. File:Lorde in Seattle 2013 -1.jpg = missing Flickr review at Commons.
  3. I formatted the image page of the one fair use image.

Once above is addressed, next on to stability review. — Cirt (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: I've fixed the poster image, and tagged the Lorde one for a flickr bot check (though clearly should be okay). --MASEM (t) 01:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and yeah hopefully should be fine. Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem:Problem at File:Lorde in Seattle 2013 -1.jpg, you'll probably have to get a manual review from a Flickr Reviewer. — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: Well, hmmm. I followed the link and found the original photo in the photostream, uncropped which has a the photographer's name as a watermark and is copyrighted on flickr as (C). And checking that commons user account, that and one other Lorde photo was uploaded and that's it, and that seems odd for a photographer that is selling photos to do that. I might have to ditch that image here due to lack of clarity. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: With the image in question removed, rest of the Image review is now fine. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, image was deleted at Commons. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review[edit]

  1. Article edit history = I'm seeing some unsourced no-edit-summary IP changes -- have those been checked individually as okay?
  2. Talk page history = no issues there.

@Masem:Just the one above question, if you could respond, below? — Cirt (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt, checking from the August 15 date (when I put this for GA2), the IP edits are fine (one was edit warring w/ reverts, but the others are AGF additions and not problematic). --MASEM (t) 01:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sounds good. Stability review is fine. Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

@Masem:Suggest you could add this and all related song articles to WP:Comedy as I see the artist is already in there too, as they're all forms of satire and parody. Also could add Portal:Comedy and Portal:Music. — Cirt (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added on appropriate points. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will get to rest of review soon. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 6, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing quality is good throughout, there is a little bit too much usage of longer sentences that could be split up, or overusage of commas, etc, stuff like that, suggest going for WP:GOCE and peer review and soliciting help from editors previously uninvolved with the article for copy editing this stuff. Otherwise good and well-written.
2. Verifiable?: Duly cited throughout. One bare link at ref 38 needs to be formatted properly with WP:CITE and WP:CIT templates. Strongly recommend archiving all web links with archivedate= and archiveurl= parameters to Internet Archive.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects and is broad in scope and breath, for sure.
4. Neutral point of view?: Presented in a neutral tone and written in a matter-of-fact way.
5. Stable? See above, no issues here.
6. Images?: See above, no issues here.

Just please fix that one bare link at ref 38 and get some copy editors. :) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got the bare ref fixed. Other steps will be done in time, I'm sure. :) Thank you! --MASEM (t) 18:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mandatory Fun. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mandatory_Fun&oldid=1211260526"