Talk:What You Waiting For?

Common sense?
Technically, this is a number one hit in Australia* (*Australians use the English version too!), and this is the English version...so obviously we should have an article on it. Number One Hits Need Articles. This was also a debut single. All Gwen (and other artists) songs should stay if they can achieve that long of an article...they must be pretty important, and it helps with single chronology --LaotianBoy1991,12/13/05

Yet another Gwen Stefani Commercial Advertisement?
Fresh from the featured advert for "Cool" we now have yet another free advert masquerading as a legitimate Wiki article. Please explain to me why you feel that in 100 years time someone will type the words "What you waiting for?" into our search engine expecting to see this article? Yes she should have a bio, but a track by track uncritical puff piece for each song? No. --HasBeen 14:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Other
Hello, I'm just curious to know what this part of your article means:
 * As the single was released while Billboard Magazine was changing its format, the song was already dropping and was not allowed to chart on The Pop 100 Airplay or Hot Digital Songs.

What format change are you referring to and why would the song "not be allowed" to chart? Has Billboard made any statement regarding this (or other) songs not eligible for those charts based on some criteria?
 * eo 8 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)

Well, whenever Billboard is in the process of introducing a new chart, they always give it a test run, several weeks before it comes out. That's why when a new chart like The Pop 100 was introduced, all the songs did not start a 1 week total, they all started out with different weeks, even though technically, that was the first the chart existed to the public and for official counting.

The song was released in late 2004 and was still on the chart up to about March 2005 or so. The format change came in February 2005. With the format change, Top 40 Tracks was removed and replaced with the Pop 100 Airplay. As you can see, the song charted on Top 40 Tracks, but by the time, it could charted on The Pop 100 Airplay, airplay was already dying, and it never made it to the released public chart, but it definitely made it on the unpublished charts, and also like I said, you can compares its performance on Top 40 Tracks, to get an idea of how it would chart on Pop 100 Airplay. The song did make the Pop 100, but due only to its downloads.

And originally, there was only one chart for digital donwloads called Hot Digital Tracks. And this track listed each version of a song by itself. (So a song could chart with its album version, a remix, a dirty version, etc). On this chart, only onr version of this song charted and it peaked at #4. Later, when Hot Digital Songs came out, the song couldnt chart, because it was already past its peak, but I think its safe to assume that on test charts, the song had performed.

Basically, my point was to say that those songs didnt chart, but not because they flopped, but becasue they were released too late to have made a signifcant impact on those charts, but had they been released earlier, based on comparasions to similar charts, it is most likely, they they charted too. Does that make sense? I'm not sure if I explained it well 8 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do understand what you are saying. I think it was your use of the term format change that threw me off.  The introduction of a new chart in Billboard isn't really a change in format - it simply is the introduction of a new chart.  While I appreciate the thorough chart stats in your article, it seems like POV to me to say something along the lines of, "if only such-and-such a chart existed, then this song would have charted much higher."  Because those test charts are unpublished, they simply are that: test charts... unofficial, they don't count because they were used internally by Billboard to gauge their usefulness.  Saying a song is not allowed to chart sounds to me as if it needs some further explanation as to why Billboard would prevent it from appearing on a chart (kind of like how one would explain that airplay tracks could not chart before 1991 because Billboard's policy at the time was.... blah blah blah, you get the idea).


 * I've been a Billboard fanatic for 25 years so I know they change stuff around a lot to reflect the changes in the music industry. That small part of your article just sounded like speculation to me, that's all.  Keep up the good work!  :)
 * eo 8 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)

Material removed and changed in account of video
OmegaWikipedia keeps reversing me on this, so a longer explanation is needed. First, the account of the video was overlong, and fan-gushy in its exhaustive detail and wording. Secondly, it was full of poor style and outright grammatical errors. I've pruned and tidied it in an attempt to make it look like something that's not too out of place in an encyclopedia. To be honest, it still needs more work, so call this an interim compromise. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How about a compromise in length; one version has 1 paragraph and the other has 6, so how about 3 or 4 paragraphs? This seems like a relatively easy thing to compromise on. Personally I'd tend to favor more detail rather than less but I think 3 or 4 paragraphs could certainly cover the video adequately. Everyking 14:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the one paragraph in my version is longer than two of the paragraphs combined in the original version. It's not length, though &mdash; it's all the tosh about her glamourous (sic) dresses, etc. The big question, I suppose, is whether this is encyclopædic; I'd say not. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Failed AFD
See Articles for deletion/What You Waiting For?. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph.
This paragraph makes little sense. If someone can make sense of it, then fix it and put it back in.

There are also some parts of the song spoken in Japanese. During the 'Tick-Tocks' Music (Rino Nakasone) in the video says 'Gwen ha, suru no?' 'Ha' which is pronouced 'Wa' and at the end of the song after Gwen says 'Take a chance you stupid ho' "Hey, so she is saying, 'komatterunjyane' which means, instead of thinking worry, just go for it but very forced way." Music And after Music says, "Go back, Do Japan!"


 * Zepheus &lt;ツィフィアス&gt; 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Pass
Looks good to me - Good work. M3tal H3ad 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Critical reception - has two critics name (like PopMatters' Jason Damas) while the others refer just to the website, might want to add the critics name
 * highlight of Love. Angel. Music. Baby. This is the first mention of it in the body - so i think a wikilink would be appropriate.
 * to initially strong airplay. I don't like how this is worded
 * The song performed moderately on other Billboard formats, what formats? How does a song perform "moderately", comma missing in that sentence also

Vinyl Single
It has more remixes...and it's apparently official. Tracks: 1. Armand van Helden Remix 2. Felix da Housecat's "Thee Dirty Ho" Mix 3. Armand van Helden Dub

Should this be added or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Jesus someone really likes this song!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Genre
I know this is a Dance song but it has a a rockish sound to it aswell...so should it be Dance-rock or Dance pop rock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.254.220 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not rock. It's dance-pop and new wave influenced. Charmed36 (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwenspride08 Oooh ok..sorry..But New wave is a style of ROCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.252.8 (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be but it's mention in the article. Charmed36 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The overall genre is Dance-pop, there is no dubt about it. Let us put it up this way


 * Dance+Pop+Rock+New wave= Dane pop....i am trying to say whatever genre you guys feel it is, it all adds up to form Dance - pop. Indianescence (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwenspride08 oh yeah..Im sorry, because if we put "rock" in the music genre section, the world will end! I dont see how having "Dance-pop AND rock" in the genre section is going to hurt anyone because its TRUE it is dance/rock song! so why cant we just put up with it THIS way!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.252.8 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not rock. It's new influenced. It is all mention in the article. Gwenspride08, it seems you don't care about the correct content of the article. Charmed36 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone agrees dance pop. If someone wants to add rock or dance-rock, a reliable source should be added. That way, there'd be no reason to revert. Spellcast (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and please stop changing them. BatterBean (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok good, :D I have two reliable sources calling this song Dance-rockShirlthemanson —Preceding comment was added at 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This song is dance punk and New Wave. Oh and someone screwed up the infobox, I'd fix it but I don't know how!--Seán Travers (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seán Travers (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the two sources for dance punk was unreliable. That leaves one source saying it's dance punk. The song is electropop and dance-pop. Here are four sources that describe it as electropop/electro:  If needed, there are other ones out there that describe it as New Wave or synthpop (electropop is a form of both). PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be New wave as there are loads of sources calling it New Wave and electropop for the same reason. They are also both included in the article.86.29.242.63 (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is another source for it being New Wave. http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/stefani_gwen/artist.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.242.63 (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Writing and lyrics
Additional information can be found in a Rolling Stone magazine interview with Stefani. Check it out. --Efe (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Revenge/anger is NOT a valid motive for editing
Just because you are angry at me for my edits at the 7 Things article does NOT give you the right to edit my TRUTHFUL adittions to this page.

The video DOES depict scenes from the book (and if you want "proof", watch the damn video yourself) and indeed the "fantasy land" is supposed to be Wonderland.

And Gwen is clearly performing the song in that show as Alice since:

1- The dress she wears matches the one in the music video.

2- It also matches the way Alice is usually dressed, specially the original Tenniel illustrations and the Disney film.

You lashing out because of edits in an entire different article is WRONG, and I WILL report you for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 08:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, your adding original research to a featured article. — Realist  2  14:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above reasoning is covered under original research. It is YOUR evaluation. Find an article in a reliable source that does that evaluation and it can go in the article with the source given as a reference. --NrDg 16:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you watched the video and read the book? Why would you need articles when you have the material in question?

If you watched the video and read the book and STILL don't recognize any scenes from the book in the video, THEN I will back down my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 10:30, January 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. It is your interpretation and synthesis. Find a review article that is in a reliable source that sees the same things and comments on it and you have something that can go in the article. Primary source is source of factual information about what is in the source. Your interpretation of that beyond the basic facts is prohibited original research. --NrDg 15:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on What You Waiting For?. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/song/gwen-stefani/what-you-waiting-for/5649381

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on What You Waiting For?. 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/20061009055325/http://dancemusic.about.com/od/reviews/fr/GwenSWYWFRev.htm to http://dancemusic.about.com/od/reviews/fr/GwenSWYWFRev.htm

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) 11:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)