Talk:Chocolate Rain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chocolate Rain article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
A fact from Chocolate Rain appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 August 2007.
Wikipedia


Contents

[edit] chocolate rain

I just watched Chocolate Rain played live on Jimmy Kimmel on ABC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.101.40 (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2007(UTC)

As much as I detest that song, I strongly disagree with the article protected from creation. Choclate Rain has become an Internet phenomenon (over 4 million YouTube views, as well as several parodies), plus Tay Zonday performed it on Jimmy Kimmel Live, which is brodcast nationally. Does that not fall under WP:NOTABILITY? CardinalFangZERO 09:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here looking for information on the song/phenomenon, was a little disappointed a few days ago when there was nothing at all, happy to find something here now. Contemporary culture is an area where Wiki has great value. 24.203.45.242 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate Rain has an article on WP? Chocolate Shame...—Wasabe3543 11:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #chan

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

its because chocolate rain was made famous due to the many #chan sites, and as a result the wiki admins refuse that it can be notable, due to this reason alone. There is no reason for this article, or the article about Tay Zonday to not exist, especially when there are thousands of articles about bands that have no where near as much notability. The song (chocolate rain) has even been played on BBC Radio 1 on the Scott Mills show, plus his numerous tv-shows he has been on recently in the States. --Scuzzmonkey 10:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS. It's policy. Show us the citations or the matter is closed. —ptk✰fgs 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Appearance on a national radio show in the UK - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HxVM82Nv0xI
Appearance on Jimmy Kimmel - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NattlyH0IeM

--Darksun 15:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If we show you the picture of Taz Zonday, AKA Adam Bahner acknowledging 4chan as discovering will the admins allow it?

This has nothing to do with admins. It's about policy. A picture is not a reliable source. A quote, however, would suffice. the_undertow talk 04:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Tay Zonday wasn't notable at all three days ago, but thanks to the benevolence of the exalted admins he shall be henceforth. Thank you for giving him permission to be noteworthy. As we all know nothing is worthwhile if it isn't deemed acceptable by the Wikipedia blackshirts. --NyBob85 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And just another example as to how the mass censorship of wikipedia is totally undermining the reasons as to why it was set up. --81.178.217.78 17:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Notability cannot be established without published sources. You and all your friends could have been watching this video six months ago, but until someone publishes an account of this phenomena, it would not merit inclusion. the_undertow talk 21:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Verifiability and notability guidelines are policies supported Wikipedia's founder. It's not 'going against the reason as you why Wikipedia was set up' atall - Wikipedia was set up to be an encyclopaedia, not an indiscrimated collection of knowledge. --Darksun 14:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is full proof that chocolate rain was started on 4chan's /b/. http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/dspl_thread.php5?thread_id=32640395&x=chocolate+rain It comes from a site that archive's 4chan threads. After that thread was made, Tay became famous. Gliabrant 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

4chanarchive is not a reliable source. Odd how 4chan folks seem to spend a lot of time here blowing smoke about starting internet fads, but no reliable source ever seems to commit that to print. Almost makes you think it's not true, eh? —ptk✰fgs 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, on an imageboard where any given thread will be bumped off and deleted as quickly as 5 minutes after the last post, it's hard for anything that originates there to be proven reliably. Darkwhistle 09:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
True, but when the thread was made, Tay Zonday has NO subscribers, and no comments. After that thread was made, he skyrocketed in popularity. And also, this particular thread had 268 posts, which means it was around longer then 5 minutes. :) 76.3.186.148 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA RUNS ON RELIABLE SOURCES. This is non-negotiable policy. No sources? Nothing to discuss. Have a nice day. —ptk✰fgs 21:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have a nice day yourself! ;-)

So, even given the fact that the dates are placed on the posts, you still do not believe it originated on 4chan? - !Malomeat 08:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If you think about the memes that are about at the moment, Caturday, Mudkips, Seaking, Bitches Don't Know About My {Insert}, all of them have originated from 4chan and /b/ no matter what the guys on SA or ebaums say. But as they are just that, internet meme's it will never get articles in The Times or any WP:RS because it is the internet. If celebrities were running around telling reporters to "Do a Barrel Roll" and saying "sup /b/rother" then WP:RS would find out about it, but they are not. There are certain aspects, especially meme's that cannot be subject to WP:RS as they quite simply do not exist outside of the internet, and thus there is no RS that covers them, except maybe on a complete off chance, and even then does not credit them with where they came from. --Scuzzmonkey 00:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
the WP:IAR exists for a reason too. --Scuzzmonkey 00:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope you know a good deal of fag4chan's memes aren't theirs.--Thelostcup 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Rain Lyrics Permission

Hello, I am now aware that to post the song's lyrics requires copyright permission, well I have contacted Tay Zonday with my request for permission, and I am still waiting for a response. If he grants permission for the Chocolate Rain lyrics to be included in this article, should I add them? I just want some opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Firejunk (talk • contribs).

It wouldn´t hurt, but I still don´t think it needs them. - !Malomeat 08:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
They would be better suited to Wikisource if permission can be gained. Darksun 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
No. Lyrics are almost never good ideas for article content. this isn't an exception -- Firejunk 10:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Chocolate Rain The video says: (Some right reserved under Creative Commons License). You know what this means? --Xinjinbei 14:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a moot point as Firejunk said, lyrics do not belong on this page. the_undertow talk 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Does the Creative Commons licence mean we could upload a sample of the song without the need for claiming fair use? anemone│projectors 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a noncommercial license, so we'd still need to do so through fair use (although it does make passage of WP:NFCC#2 easier). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find which CC licence was in use so thanks for clarifying. anemone│projectors 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Rain was discovered by 4chan.

It's pretty incredible and sad when the article on encyclopediadramatica (under "Tay_Zonday") is more factual and accurate than the one on Wikipedia. I mean, it's pretty clear the people erasing the 4chan references have an agenda. I'm not going to even try to post links because the 4chanarchive should be proof enough. But hey, people spend all their time on wikipedia building sock puppets. Why? I'll never know.

I've seen archive.org used as source before. Why not 4chanarchive.org? Whatever. Because of anon you now have a funny song in your MP3 player. You're welcome. And Carson Daly clearly has someone lurking /b/ for his comedy "ideas." It happens all too often that our memes make it to air.Utils 19:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What you guys must remember is that wikipedia is VASTLY inferior to Encyclopedia Dramatica in terms of the truth in the articles, because wikipedia has a policy of "verifiability over truth" (moar liek shittyness over truth whatwhat). They also seem to have some kind of deep rooted agenda against 4chan. It is sad to see not a SINGLE mention of 4chan's involvement in promoting this abomination of a song, but not really surprising--Tapok 20:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

If someone added verifiable information about 4chan's role in promoting this song, we should keep it. Until then, what is there to talk about? Friday (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:IAR?--Scuzzmonkey 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means - "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. --Darksun 20:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Lurk moar. WP:POLICY, more specifically WP:RS, is not something we make exceptions to without incredibly good reasons. Also see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Anyway, go find a RELIABLE SOURCE that backs this up, and come back when you do. --lucid 20:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they're doing it out of fear of the repercussions of breaking rules 1 and 2 of the internet. --Super Bhaal 22:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

wiki can to accept that O RLY? had some credit from 4chan using an 4chan achieved post O_RLY?#_note-2 yet when shown a achieve on this, rejects it? Adjective Noun 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —BurnDownBabylon 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
This is about confirming a detail in its rise to fame, the O RLY was accepted with evidence from a achieve, and this can also be confirmed with an achieve, so why the diffrence? WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is for countering the "they have this article X, so why not this article Y? not for verifing somthing Adjective Noun 20:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The point of the essay is that one defect in Wikipedia should not be used to justify retaining another defect. All that would promote is a race to the bottom. —BurnDownBabylon 22:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
hahahah, so you go and remove that valid citation. "Defect" should be the motto of wiki Adjective Noun 08:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POST ELECTRONIC ART MUSIC?

Who is the cool guy who called it that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.226.72 (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC) xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why not...

Why not put something in the article to the effect that "Many people suspect" that 4chan started the meme, and give the rationality (4chan thread just before popularity surge), but then cite t he lack of evidence for that claim. Surely that's acceptable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.33.10 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 4chan sourced

Tay Zonday stated his initial popularity is probably due to repeated postings on 4chan.

"I'm pretty sure the "Chocolate Rain" attention started as a joke at 4chan.org, an image board that is credited with starting lots of popular internet phenomena. It spread to a general audience and people started uploading spoofs. I don't know what causes people to listen to my music. If I could speak it, there would be no reason to write songs. " [1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.175.4 (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this is not a resolved issue, I slightly edited the line from "The spread of the popularity of the song is attributed to 4chan" to "Many attribute the initial spread of the popularity of the song to 4chan." This better represents current consensus on the issue, and also is more acurate (only the initial spread was from 4chan. Word of mouth probably played a much larger role afterwards, as well as simple links on youtube and elsewhere). This also avoids the passive voice. But most importantly, don't enact an unresolved change.Eebster the Great (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tributes / Spoofs?

Or whatever that section is called. What leads something to be listed in this section? For example, searching Chocolate Rain on YouTube produces some tribute link by the "WHB Chorus" and that's not listed on here. Wobblies 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Rain and Jenkem

I was quite intrigued about the lyrics reading the Encyclopedia Dramatica article (www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Jenkem) connecting this video with the Jenkem phenomenon, asserting (about the alleged emergence among American teenagers of Jenkem as a recreational hallucinogenic drug): "This increase has been partly attributed to the success of Chocolate Rain, whose lyrics implicitly refer to the practice and social effects of jenkem abuse." Having first read about this link in the About.Com:Urban Legends page Jenkem — Drug Warning I became very curious to investigate the actual lyrics of "Chocolate Rain." In a section above the need for including the lyrics is dismissed, however, I would still be very interested in at least having a link to a page which contains the lyrics. Perhaps they could find their place on Wikisource if the licence would permit that. __meco 08:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EwTZ2xpQwpA here's the lyrics --84.250.45.172 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


   Encyclopedia Dramatica is a paroday website. 78.144.108.38 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cherry Cola

I actually made the first post about an internet phenomenon. Usually people make it here before me. Someone edited it and made it better, but still, I win for once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.145.36 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] genre?

--220.233.201.76 (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) how is this "post electronic art music"? somebody fix this!

[edit] Lyrical interpretation

I believe that a link of the external variety regarding a lyrical interpretation, if you will, of the song in question would be in order. Wherefore am I inexplicably seeming to sound knowledgible, I ask thee. Kodster (Talk) 01:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benefit Power?

Should we add something about the Benefit Power album? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.149.42 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)