Jump to content

Talk:Ulterior Motives (song)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XanderK09 (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 28 April 2024 (→Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2024: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lost song

This song appeared on WatZatSong in 2021 by a user named carl92 asking for help in identifying the snippet he posted. Using Shazam, it listed the artist as being SNVFFXXX, but I have reason to believe this is likely a placeholder, and not the actual band behind it (and if it were, the mystery surrounding this song would be over by now, lol). The year is also up for debate. Rolling Stone and several users describe this song as having a 1980s sound. Rolling Stone described it as being reminiscent of the upbeat, new wave music from the 1980s while the song's usage of synthesizers also lend it a synth-pop vibe. Despite the sound, it could have been recorded after the 1980s; someone suggested this could have come from a 1990s MTV broadcast. It also has a sound that could be from late-2000's to early-2010s synthwave music. It also sounds like something The Weeknd could have recorded a la Blinding Lights as well. Lots of mystery surrounding this song! Moline1 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Hayes

Darren Hayes, best remembered as the vocalist of Savage Garden, may in fact, have been behind this song all along. Yesterday, he posted a cryptic tweet simply saying "Everyone Knows That", adding fuel to the rumor that he is behind it. Is a full reveal imminent? Who knows. Here's the tweet. https://twitter.com/darrenhayes/status/1725697367461216265 Moline1 (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

Currently, I'm concerned it might be WP:TOOSOON for an article on this subject; how many reliable sources can be found on this particular song besides the Rolling Stone article? There's also this article from The Messenger that seems to largely parrot what Rolling Stone said. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there is now coverage from a French TV channel, TF1. I withdraw my comment. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brainulator9 Should we take the template off the page then? Pineappman (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pineappman I didn't put it there, but you're welcome to, I guess. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brainulator9 Fair enough, I'll take it down. Pineappman (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Gimmick

One theory is this song is a promotional gimmick for either the site it was posted on or the artist who posted it. It would be in bad taste to have an article created for a non notable artist due only to the search. It would accomplish the goal set out by the one who created the search, which is fame by hoax. Until it’s found, it’s really not worth a dedicated page. Particularly until the artist can be ruled out as anybody but the person who originally posted it. 2601:407:100:B0B0:3531:96A7:BABE:A7D5 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intentions of the subject do not affect notability in the slightest. It's hardly in bad taste to have an article on something notable, regardless of its actual origins. If the song is notable then it's notable. If it's not, it's not. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Coverage

Newser

The Guardian

KNAU (NPR)

UNILAD

Audacy

Dazed Digital Microplastic Consumer (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I feel about a couple of those sources but it may have WP:SIGCOV now, especially with the Guardian article. Though I'm not sure how one would go about reversing the AfD decision; we couldn't just remove the tag and act like it didn't happen, could we? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also being discussed on the Lostwave talkpage. I do think we should probably reverse the AfD decision somehow though. Pineappman (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

These headings are quite confusing. Why is there a separate section for the instruments used? Why is the history of the song and the search for the song separate? Pineappman (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I agree that all these separate sections do seem a bit redundant; the information about the subreddit is repeated in the history and online search sections. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Speculation

This article looks awful and beneath Wikipedia standards.

It’s loaded with “maybe, “possible” and “unknown” qualifiers. Guessing on the instruments, how and where it was recorded, etc etc.

It feels more like it’s trying to draw attention to the search for the song than it is to actually inform people about the song.

Since the song itself is unknown, it’: impossible to accurately represent it and since it cannot be accurately explained, it doesn’t belong here.

Until the song is found, it’s better to move the article to a page about lostwave. 2601:407:100:B0B0:2574:E009:CE68:29E3 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unencyclopedic to say that there is speculation about something or that some people think something, as long as you phrase it in a neutral tone that makes it clear that it is not proven and give due weight. The speculation of the instruments used, for example, is backed up by The Guardian, a reliable source. A subject does not need to have all the facts known for it to be notable. I will agree, however, that there may be some problems with the layout of the article, as per above. I suppose you could propose a merger or nominate for AfD if you want, but it has already gone through AfD once. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2024

My edit rewords and provides concrete sources now that EKT has been found! Rosia4309 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.reddit.com/r/everyoneknowsthat/comments/1cf7fxd/ekt_is_found_heavy_nsfw_warning/ <---Reddit Link with context, and full (not even remotely safe for work) audio. 2601:85:C202:45A0:2059:6BB7:1885:3BCD (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reddit is not a reliable source, and a post claiming to have found the song is WP:PRIMARY. Such a claim requires a secondary reliable source, like a newspaper article reporting on the discovery of the song, to verify. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to a newspaper article reporting that an obscure piece of lost media was found in a 1980s porno. Given that there is a link to the audio in the thread, could that at least be added somewhere since this mystery has been solved? 2601:85:C202:45A0:2059:6BB7:1885:3BCD (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that The Guardian already reported on the mystery, it doesn't seem unlikely that a paper might report on it being solved. And if it's not noteworthy enough to report on, then it brings into question the notability of this article. As for adding the audio, no. The snippet of the song was already deleted for copyright reasons. It's possible a snippet could be uploaded locally to enwiki under fair use, but certainly not the whole song. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
most searched for lost song and it was just nsfw LOL XanderK09 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulterior_Motives_(song)&oldid=1221218560"