Talk:Rock Lobster/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Rock Lobster" and Family Guy

Clearly to state the position of those who consider that the article on the song "Rock Lobster" is of greater importance than any single listing of its use elsewhere, with this sole exception:

• as part of a general mention on its role in early twenty-first century American pop culture.

As noted (see below):

• RfC response: I think the Family Guy mention in this article is just brief enough to establish notability/legacy without turning into fancruft.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Consequently, the reference in this article to Family Guy is, and shall remain, as follows:

 The song remains a part of pop culture, with other
 versions of "Rock Lobster" appearing in a 2005 
 episode of [[Family Guy]]  <ref>[http://www.tv.com/
 family-guy/the-cleveland-loretta-quagmire/episode/
 365974/summary.html Usage in Family Guy]</ref>
 <ref> [http://tviv.org/Family_Guy/The_Cleveland-
 Loretta_Quagmire Usage in Family Guy]</ref>

Any additions/changes to the page which expand beyond this appropriate and agreed-upon FG reference will always be reverted. The changes will be reverted at any time there is no discussion on this Talk page. Any changes made accompanied by discussion on this Talk page will be reverted until consensus can be reached. I will always invoke the RfC process to revert the changes and, of course, abide by any agreed-upon consensus arrived at by this process, even if I disagree with it. -- Fantailfan (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Rock Lobster" Sightings

The way I see it is that the article is a stub, and any related information that could be added to a stub is helpful. Perhaps after the article has grown a lot would "less-related" information bProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

omitted.

However, referencing a "Rock Lobster" appearance in the Family Guy episode (and oProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

er places) doesn't imply that the song is trivial or depthless. Perhaps one may think the Family Guy show itself is somewhat without depth, but it doesn't change the fact that the song was referenced on a popular medium that most people would recognize.

To DJH47: You have defended this article twice now from my and Pennyforth's attempt to just add some additional information to an otherwise stub article. I don't think either of us were intending to change the meaning of the song. In fact, since you hold the song so highly, I'm looking forward to reading about the underlying meanings of the song. If you're going to accuse these references as ignorance, then I hope that you're researching your own eventual contribution to this article that would inform everyone of the scope of the song.

Both Pennyforth and I tried to edit this article in the most professional-sounding manner. We didn't merely say, "rock lobster also appeared in family guy when peter sang it." We gave our best Wiki-editing effort, and I would at least rather you add an annotation that perhaps Peter's singing of the song on the show does not reflect the true meaning of the song, rather than omitting the reference entirely.

--Crisu 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just add it. He probably won't pay any attention to this otherwise. --Crazy SunShine 06:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have returned the references. If there are other instances in which this song has been used, feel free to add them. --Crazysunshine 00:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning, on this talk page at least, that the makers of the show actually had two other songs in mind for that scene in Family Guy, but couldn't get the rights to them, so they had to "settle" for their third choice, which is Rock Lobster. It was a very funny scene for it, in any case JayKeaton 02:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I added Knocked Up as an instance of the song in pop culture Soltake (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Amiga 500 motherboard

I'm pretty sure the Amiga 500 motherboard only says "Rock Lobster", not "The B-52's Rock Lobster". And because it's printed directly onto the circuit board, not in a label of some sorts, because of technical restrictions it's all in upper case. JIP | Talk 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It says "B52/ROCK LOBSTER". Reference can be found here (below the square IC): [1] or here (on the far right): [2].

Rick Anderson quote

The quote: "despite the song's self-consciously weird texture and silly lyrics about earlobes falling off and communal towel coordination, there's a thread of darkness weaving through it. Make no mistake: this is not a song with hidden meaning lurking below the surface. But its surface is a little more complicated than it seems to be at first." by Rick Anderson does not have any citation. If one is not found within a week, I am deleting it. Daedalus969 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been more then one week, and still, there remains no citation for the quote. Therefore, as previously stated, I am deleting this quote from the article. Daedalus969 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, a 5 second Google search finds the source: http://www.allmusic.com/song/rock-lobster-mt0033818149 122.109.49.20 (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to "Rock Lobster", Vanboto(talk)

In reguards to your edits of the addition of the family guy song, it is stated quite clearly that orignal research is not allowed for wikipedia articles, meaning, that in order for there to be any addition of such, there must be a citation from the creators of Family Guy that such material was actually present in the episode.

I know for a fact that such material was, as do thousands of other viewers, however, that is called orignal research, and if you read the wikipedia guidelines, you would know that such is not allowed.

So, before you go adding it again, find a citation of the creators speaking of such, and cite it, or it will be removed.Daedalus969 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting this won't make the problem go away. If you don't stop the vandelism, we're going to lock you out of making edits by reporting you. Daedalus969 (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about jealousy(in fact, that is an incorrect use of the word), nor does it have anything to do with POV. This has to do with how Wikipedia is run. It is not run on Orignal Research, but actually sources. We shall both continue to edit Rock Lobster as what you are adding is called Orignal Research, which is not allowed. You must find a verifable source, Youtube does not count as a verifable source, the only thing that could is a direct quote from an article of the creators. Daedalus969 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read it carefully enough the first time. Again, this is not about point of view, second of all, trivia sections have no relevantence in any article. Third, POV of a user is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. This is Original research. Unless you find a verifible source, as in a quote by the creators, or information reguarding the credits of that particular episode, or even a court document stating the allowance of the song to be used in the episode, any other source is not verifible, and the information will therefore be removed. If you do not stop with your blantant Original research, we will be forced to contact an admin and remove your ability to edit this article. This is your first warning. Daedalus969 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If the information reguarding said quote from the Family Guy TV show has relevance, please state it. Family Guy makes many, many, many popular culture references, just because this song was heard in it does not make it relevant to be listed. Daedalus969 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a verifible citation for the reference, we shall not delete it. As stated before, a verifible citation would be a quote from the creators themselves. If you want it in the article so badly, why don't you email the creators and ask them to list it on their website. Daedalus969 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Take note that if you delete anything on this discussion page, it is vandalism, and you will be reported and removed. Daedalus969 (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding a cite for him (it is sufficient to cite the episode itself) and also deleting the link to the copyrighted video (which is likely to end up deleted from youtube anyway). Hopefully this clears up any issues. ---- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 01:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the page. Daedalus969 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the citation is not an issue anymore, the relevance of the information is. As stated by DH, trivia has no place here. In fact, trivia sections are discouraged under wikipedia guidelines. Daedalus969 (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We already stated our arguements on the matter, now state yours. Daedalus969 (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy reference

Looking at the talk page, I still don't understand why Daedalus969 is so dead-set opposed to having any reference of this song in pop culture placed on the page. Proper references of the song's mention show how widely recognized the song actually is. Redrocket (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for actually providing a clear stated reason for your edit, unlike some self-absorbed people that have been through this article. I shall not revert. Daedalus969 (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy also references Christianity and several 80s movies. However, you do not find references to Family Guy in those articles. The reason for this is that although a subject might be important to its own article, its allusions are probably not worth discussing in the actual article itself. You could link to Rock Lobster on the Family Guy episode's article, but it probably does not justify the other way around. --DJH47 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to Snowfire, just because the song is in Family Guy does not mean it is well known, despite the fact that it is. Family Guy has referenced many things that only a small minority would catch. If you think it is so relevant that it be listed in this article instead of the Family Guy article, please state why. Daedalus969 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Comparing a song to Christianity is a bit much of a stretch, don't you think? As for movies, just a search off the top of my head shows Family Guy's references are included on the pages for The Breakfast Club, The Butterfly Effect, and Poltergeist. For other songs, Take on Me, Another One Bites the Dust, and Great Balls Of Fire all have their Family Guy references located on their page.

In response to Daedalus, I'm not saying the reference should be here instead of on the Family Guy page. It should be on both, it's notable on both.

This article is pretty bare, honestly. I'd argue the pop culture status of being mentioned in Family Guy helps the notability of the song, and the article. I don't see a precedent for keeping references in other media out of the article. Redrocket (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The song's relevance remains completely out of the whole realm of Family Guy references. Thank you for listing other pages with similar problems. --DJH47 (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't other problems, those are examples of consensus reached on other, more highly-trafficked pages. The song relevance is enhanced by the Family Guy scene, in the same way as listing its position on the Rolling Stone list. It shows relevance and cultural significance. Redrocket (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars does not mention the Star Wars Kid. Hurricane Katrina does not mention Family Guy. (I remember them referring to that once!) References in a television series notorious for allusion is not notable in the article of referent. --DJH47 (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars has a pretty large section of pop culture and references on its page, merely because there are far too many reference to SW to list on a single page does not mean all of them are non-notable. Redrocket (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars needs to be cleaned up, simply put. The run-on sentence about Star Wars being referred to on Drake and Josh makes it sound like Wikipedia is run by 12-year-olds. --DJH47 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may jump in, Hurricane Katrina is not a song. Of course, we could run about this an endless stream of trivialities. However, given that Family Guy is quite a popular show, I'd say that the reference could be included. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Family Guy is relevant. The issue is whether a specific licensed use of "Rock Lobster" is relevant enough to be included in its article. The established precedent is against these sort of references, as seen by better-defended articles without a gigantic listing of every work that has casually alluded to them. --DJH47 (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you've got a good point; it was only alluded to once, I think. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

References in other media

I still don't see there as being a clear consensus to not include any references to the song in other media.

This came up in a discussion at WP:ANI a while back, and there's no wiki-wide consensus to never include material of this sort, and when in doubt, it can be left in. Several editors have readded references in the last few days, so there doesn't seem to be a widely known prejudice against it. I see nothing wrong with reopening the discussion.

I'm not a big fan of huge, sprawling reference sections, but a small article like this about a thirty-year old song of questionable notariety (I don't even think it charted) is actually helped by references in other media. The use of the song in works such as Veggie Tales or Family Guy is further evidence it remains notable. It would be like an article on "Private Idaho" not mentioning the song's title inspiring the name of a movie.

I don't see anything wrong with adding properly referenced material, as long as it either adds notability or unique information to an article. Redrocket (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The song was a passing reference, and it isn't even worth noting, because as DH said, and well, the show creators said, The song was our back-up choice in case we didn't get a different song. I know this is not the exact wording, but it is close. Reguarding the consensus, it is above this new section. A different editor agreed that a passing reference is not notable to place on this page. It could be placed on the page of the episode, but not here. Daedalus (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you talking this over, and also your help earlier on that WP:3RR business. Anyway, whether the song was their first choice or not doesn't make much difference, don't you think? A thirty-year old song that never reached the charts was used in two modern works. Even being mentioned in passing helps establish the notability of the article, which is honestly pretty bare otherwise.

You originally agreed with me on this one [3], after some other editor had tried unsuccessfully to add it. You agreed with my explanation as to adding notability, but then another editor whose main source of edits seem to be protecting this page changed it back at the verge of an edit war. I respectfully declined to edit war, and instead talked it over at WP:ANI, where I found that there was no clear consensus. I withdrew from the article, but it seems that editors keep adding the references back because that's the kind of information that appears in most wikipedia articles.

I'm just pointing out that there is no clear-cut consensus on this, and when there's no consensus (and no reason to pare down an article that's only a few hundred words), there's no reason to remove it. At ANI, editors were on both sides of the issue, but there is no hard fast policy on references in other media. I think evidence of that can be seen from the multiple times the information has been readded to the page.

Summing up, there's no clear consensus against it, the article is almost empty, and other uninvolved editors keep coming by to add the references because they feel the article needs them. Where's the official policy on removing properly referenced information that multiple editors wish to have added to the page?

Redrocket (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the article is nearly empty is immaterial. Whether the references added are notable is at issue. The book "Reflections of a Rock Lobster: A Story About Growing Up Gay" by Aaron Fricke, published in 1981, is significantly more notable than its use in an episode of an American television show over twenty-five years later. The fact that it was the first song out of Athens, Georgia, to be widely played across the country as one of the first manifestations of the "College Rock" meta-genre is notable, but we have to find a source for it. The impact of gay American songwriters and performers on mainstream popular music is another point of notability. Again, we have to find a non-original source for such content.

The fact that this reference must continually be deleted is, at best, a sign that Wikipedia's notability standards are overly broad. At worst it shows that some Wikipedians consider the significance of themes in early twenty-first century American cartoon television shows as they relate to the licensing of popular music songs to be so important that the significance of a particular late twentieth-century popular music song as it relates to other twentieth-century popular music songs is ignored. This kind of ignorance is especially egregious since the WikiProject for which this article is written is, in part, dedicated precisely to adjudicating such significance.

<>-<Fantailfan (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thought - what is significant or notable in one article is neither in another. You can make a one-way reference to this page from FG without the need to put anything here. Fantailfan (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I cannot really think of a good rebuttle to what Snowfire said at the moment, and because Fantailfan did a very good job of which I shall not be able to add to, I shall just read and let others post before I try to come up with -something-. Daedalus (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may, D969, I think it's because Fantailfan and I both presented pretty good arguments. I think what that shows is that there is no clear-cut concensus on wikipedia against deleting properly referenced information. There's arguments for and against, but no official policy.

It's probably a discussion that needs to be made somewhere, but since it's a wiki-wide question, it doesn't make sense to debate policy here on an article that's not heavily trafficked. This should probably be brought up at the proposals page. When in doubt on wiki, the general consensus is to leave information in (as long as it is properly referenced and doesn't violate WP:BLP or anything like that.) Redrocket (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• A consensus to "leave things in" really violates the spirit of verifiability. Letting information lie around until it is explicitly declared non-notable can only lead to cruft and other irrelevance. There is absolutely no debate in the larger music scholarship that mentioning a particular licensed use of this work would not grant any sort of insight to the work itself. --DJH47 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your last statement is totally overreaching and completely untrue. Just a random search of notable songs on wikipedia shows that quite a few have sections devoted to references, covers, or other usage. Off the top of my head, you can see on the pages for Killing Me Softly with His Song, Midnight Train to Georgia, and Crocodile Rock all have sections detailing their usage past the original recording of the song. Counting the Family Guy and Veggie Tales appearances as cover versions, there's plenty of evidence (in secondary sources) for them to be added.

• If a controversial change is made to an article without discussion here, please do not add it. Fantailfan (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sinepreltih, please do not make any changes to the article until other users have expressed their views, otherwise it will be labled as vandalism, just like what Vanboto did. If you followed the policy:Wikipedia: Civilty, then we would be better off, in reguards to your change to my talk page to F off. Secondly, when I expressed my feelings on your talk page that you need to try and discuss things instead of pushing your POV, you deleted it and labled it as vandalism. Such is not considered vandalism, nor a personal attack. I was simply asking for you to discuss the matter. Third, if you try to lable me as a vandal, it will not go well for you. Daedalus (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In reguards to your edit summery, if you bothered to read the history of this discussion, you would see that I changed my mind quite frequently. If someone offers a good arguement, I go on their side, likewise if it comes from a different side. Daedalus (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he's not being a jackass, but watch out referring to his edits as "vandalism" in a blanket statement. Stubbornness (or disagreeeing with consensus, even if there was one) isn't defined as vandalism.Redrocket (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, who are you talking to Snowfire? You also forgot to sign your post. I ask because I haven't refered to any of his edits being vandalism. Daedalus (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that. I was referring to you saying that Sinepreltih changes would be labeled as vandalism, which they're not. It's a technicality since we are having a good faith discussion on the matter now and should hold on on changes until the discussion is finished, but stubbornness is not vandalism. I know it's hard sometimes to stay cool when users like Sinepreltih make uncivil comments like this [4], but users like this sometimes walk the fine line between troll and legit editor, so I didn't want any of that to come back on you later. Redrocket (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems there was a small misunderstanding. I was referencing when he labled our(Me and Fan's) commens on his talk page to discuss the matter instead of making changes, as vandalism. If you go to the history of his talk page, you'll see what I mean. Daedalus (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems I can't remember my own posts, Sine however did lable my comments as vandalism even though they were not. Daedalus (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion.. or err.. something..

It has been several days/weeks now since this discussion ended. Redrocket provided a good argument that was able to satisfy the majority of users, both those who wanted to protect it from the onslaught of FG fanboys, and those who wanted to remove the addition of FG material. Either way, I would call the discussion finished, as a resolution has been reached. I thank you all for discussing this calmly. I thank you all for not violating WP:CIVIL. I bid you a good day, or a good night, wherever you are. Thankyou.— Dǣdαlus T@lk\^{→(quick link)} 07:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed Article Edits

If a controversial change is made to an article without discussion here, please do not add it. Fantailfan (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

As a compromise, since we seem to be against inserting unreferenced materials, what would be wrong with inserting this paragraph at the end of the article?

The song remains a part of pop culture, with other versions of "Rock Lobster" appearing in 2007 in an episode of Family Guy [5] [6] and a Veggie Tales movie [7] [8].

Secondary sources verify a new version of the song was used in both places. As I pointed out above, it's fairly common for articles about songs to include a section on other versions and usage. It's a common part of establishing notability. Redrocket (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fine - a great idea, actually. However, I don't believe it will satisfy FG fanboyz, who will likely continue to add the reference in the future. I don't know if every article with tangential reference to FG gets sullied this way, but it sure seems like it. (As you can from above, this particular piece of trivia has been added and removed since 2006.) Yes, I'm expressing an acerbic opinion, thought not about the television show itself. --Fantailfan (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this has been up for four days with no objections. I'm going to add it to the page, that should keep the rest of the FG references off the page and keep it clearer, at least. Thanks to everybody for their civility, good to establish consensus the polite way. Redrocket (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• RfC response: I think the Family Guy mention in this article is just brief enough to establish notability/legacy without turning into fancruft.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion.. or err.. something..

It has been several days/weeks now since this discussion ended. Redrocket provided a good argument that was able to satisfy the majority of users, both those who wanted to protect it from the onslaught of FG fanboys, and those who wanted to remove the addition of FG material. Either way, I would call the discussion finished, as a resolution has been reached. I thank you all for discussing this calmly. I thank you all for not violating WP:CIVIL. I bid you a good day, or a good night, wherever you are. Thankyou.— Dædαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 18:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh... yeah... ok. Been working on Ziggy Stardust. Looks good. Nothing like reporting inappropriate usernames to reduce meshugas. Fantailfan (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The way the Family Guy mention is mentioned in this article is pretty fitting and universal so far. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it very distressing that people keep inserting a mention of some darn cartoon and ignore perhaps the most famous home computer of the early 1990s. JIP | Talk 17:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This was already discussed if you would care to scroll up and read. The inserted text is in reference to a different version of the song, not a reference to the song, as that would be classified under trivia. We worked out a way to put the song in without it being trivia, as it is a citation of a version, not a mention.— Dædαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This song is also covered by Botch, and was notably only covered live, and therefore not released on a record by them until their recent live DVD, is this worth adding to this page? --Iammattsanders (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. As stated, only notable versions of the song should be mentioned, not covers of it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This talk page

This entire talk page is devoted to "discussion" of whether to add a reference to Family Guy to the article. If that "discussion" is finished then perhaps the entire talk page could be archived. 67.204.60.56 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DB Records version producer

It is not stated in the right box but the producer for the original DB records version was the band itself and Kevin Dunn. Chris Blackwell produced the Island/Warner Brothers re-recording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpabustan (talk • contribs) 19:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Rock Band 3

The song is in Rock Band 3. Someone should mention that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.41.35 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)