Talk:Updown

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Updown appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that "Updown", the first solo single released by Piri and Tommy Villiers after their breakup, was about Piri having cowgirl sex with Villiers?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Updown.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

~~... that updown updown updown updown?~~
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rick Suder
- Comment:

Moved to mainspace by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 20:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Updown; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

In my opinion, this hook is nonsensical and does not meet the primary point of a DYK which is to "share a surprising or intriguing fact". I am aware a similar hook is running for the "On & On" (Piri & Tommy song) article, which was done by the same nominator, but I have the same issue with that one. I get making quirkier or more humorous hooks, but in my opinion, this kind of hooks does not present any sort of fact for readers to read more about in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. The hook in this nomination so uninformative it looks like vandalism. The hook might make sense after a thorough reading of the actual article, but this is not the point of DYK. JIP | Talk 20:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both wrong. The point of DYK, per the lede at Wikipedia:Did you know, is to "showcase[…] new or expanded articles". The whole point of a hook is to intrigue, to 'hook' the reader in, and I would point out that the On & On hook, whatever your feelings about it are, got 20,578 views. I stand by the hook - in fact the only thing I'd change about it is to get rid of the word 'that' - and I would like to wait until after Soft spot runs before suggesting anything else.--Laun chba ller 08:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for DYK nominators say the following: "Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact." The fact-aspect of a hook is considered the most important, even in the DYK instructions. This is not a fact. I think it would be inappropriate to prioritize page views in the DYK section over sharing an actual fact. Otherwise, that defeats the entire point of this section as these so-called "facts" will just get more and more nonsensical to get people to click on them. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator in that the occasional jokey hooks are fine and dandy. Obviously, there are also alternative hooks possible, e.g. ALT1: ... that the song "Updown" is about the cowgirl sex position?

Regardless, I find the original hook acceptable. All other criterion for the article itself is through, approval pending QPQ. Juxlos (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Template:Did you know nominations/Rick Suder. I suggest my that-less hook below; up to the approver whether they want to use it.

ALT2: ~~... updown updown updown updown?~~--Laun chba ller 16:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the link with just the chorus violate the in-universe hook rule? While that rule is applied to "a work of fiction or a fictional character", I would argue a song can fall into the category of a work of fiction. The rule goes on to say "the hook must involve the real world in some way", and having the same word repeated four times (i.e. the chorus) does not meet that part. I will stop with this comment. I do not mean to intentionally bludgeon in any way so I will let a consensus form and respect whatever decision is made, but I just see multiple areas where this proposed hook does not meet the criteria for a DYK (i.e. the in-universe hook rule and how this is not "a surprising or intriguing fact". Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I'd agree with Aoba47 and JIP's points here. A humorous hook is fine, but it still should be interesting and share some information. The proposed (and its repetition as ALT2) fails in that regard. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ALT3: ... that the Piri & Tommy Villiers song "Updown" was written about the cowgirl sex position?
- ALT4: ... that the Piri & Tommy Villiers song "Updown" features a "Crazy Frog drop"?
- ALT5: ~~... that updown updown updown updown was a mistake? (accidental copying and pasting of vocals)~~--Laun chba ller 10:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - DYK hooks should be about article subjects, not about DYK itself. JIP | Talk 10:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which ALT3 and ALT4 both are.--Laun chba ller 12:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4 (and maybe ALT5) would remove my concern about the lyrical hook. I'm still not sure about so many Piri & Tommy Villers-related items at the same time, but if they're spread out enough maybe. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My comment only concerned ALT5. Sorry I wasn't clear enough. JIP | Talk 13:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of Gaucho finally arrived, which discusses the song, and specifically mentions what the song was about. ALT6: ... that "Updown", the first solo single Piri & Tommy Villiers released after their breakup, was about Piri having cowgirl sex with Villiers?--Laun chba ller 16:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still stick with ALT4. It better fits the "surprising or interesting fact" criteria. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed to check and potentially approve one or more of the remaining hooks. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article was new enough when nominated and is still long enough. Reviewing this version, #2 does not say "Piri & Tommy Villiers", nor that it was her first. Also I kind of doubt that it is a good source. Re #3: Is an exploration of a "hyperpop era" the same thing as a hyperpop song? AGF on #4-#7 and #10 and #16. Didn't notice any copyvio or plagiarism but that's a lot of quotes. Hook-wise, I think ALT3 is the most interesting and ALT4 isn't, really. Did the QPQ feature a source review? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 credits the pair as separate artists and I would say that hyperpop era = hyperpop song, but I've replaced them both anyway. Rick Suder covered everything that doesn't change, i.e. it ain't getting any newer. What is your opinion of ALT6?--Laun chba ller 10:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALT6 is like ALT3 but overlong, IMO. Sorry, when I asked about a source review, I meant that the review was a bit cursory - did you look at the sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that every paragraph contained a citation and that the hook was verified. I usually use Template:Dykr as my bible.--Laun chba ller 15:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but only for ALT6. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]