Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic

Delete request

I don't know much about editing Wikipedia, but this line and the cite don't belong: "Also, according to Stanford Libraries, fair use is unlikely to justify a parody song that parodies more than a few lines of song lyrics from an existing song.[54]"

a) Nothing in the article suggests this is actually one of Mr. Yankovic's motivations rather than an idle theory by a Wikipedia user;

b) This is an improper summarization of the rationale/content of the source page- Stanford absolutely does NOT (and in good conscience, couldn't) assert that fair use/parody is restricted only to a certain number of lines. That's flat-out not what the law is. The user was presumably confused by the fact that only a small portion of a work being used was an argument FOR fair use, but this really just goes to the "transformativeness" test.

c) While the site bears the legend of Stanford's library system, I'm pretty sure it's actually maintained by the Center for Internet & Society.

Lady Gaga Parody: Perform this Way

Through Weird Al Yancovic’s clever strategies in creating parodies, he is able to successfully critique Lady Gaga’s authenticity through his parody music video Perform this Way in 2011. The name of the parody in itself suggests that Lady Gaga is not “born” the way she is as her original title and lyrics suggest, but rather the illusion of her authenticity is created through performance. Throughout the song’s lyrics and visual aspects, Yancovic reflects the original sound and look of Gaga’s video, but with careful re-construction suggests that Gaga’s eccentric and unique character is built to seem real, but really is put in place to gain fans and celebrity success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searsjs (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

...and? pcuser42 (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is all your (Searsjs's) personal opinion/analysis. Per WP:OR, we cannot include such information in WP articles. If a reliable source put forth this analysis, and you could cite it, we could consider including it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Famous accomplishments listed in intro.

Hi there,

Any accomplishments listed in the intro must have evidence of notability: i'e' you need to provide evidence that Yankovic is famouse for those things, not just evidence that he does them. For instance, Yancovic may play tennis, but he has not made any notable tennis-playing achievements.

InternetMeme (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

InternetMeme is correct. Most famous people have done dozens of things, even things they can be documented as doing, like when an actor talks about how hard it was when they were a waiter back before they became famous during an interview. This falls under the more general idea that WP:V does not say that everything that can be verified belongs in an article--it's merely the minimum standard for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So... the fact that most sources outline the accordion as his calling card does not make accordion playing notable enough? Also, I would advise you to read WP:BRD – a consensus must be reached before making controversial changes. I had to ask you a couple of times before you even initiated this discussion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a controversial change: You're the only one disagreeing with it. The controversy is at your end. He is not famous for playing the accordion. He is famous, and he also happens to play the accordion. That is how it's currently worded.

If you want to prove notability, you need to find a reference listed in accordioning circles citing him as a world-class accordionist. InternetMeme (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that he needs to be considered a good accordion player to be considered notable for playing the accordion. Regardless, what about Accordionist of the Year, 1989? [1] Or Roland declaring him "An accordion player first and foremost"? [2] --Maxamegalon2000 03:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)