Talk:La La (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the La La (song) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
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.
La La (song) was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: January 30, 2006

non-comprehensive, eg. not enough about the actual musicality: instruments, rhythms, verse-form structure etc.

Hi Everyking,

Please see Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Links and URLs under "Date formats" (the second to last row). The purpose of linking November 18 is so it displays the same as 18 November. You can change the display order in your preferences. I agree that in general a term shouldn't be linked multiple times, but these dates are an exception.

--Dbenbenn 17:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine, change it if you want, then. Everyking 19:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Please use accurate terminology.

An album cut is not the same thing as a single. If you require independent verification, please refer to good old Billboard. While it is true that many people are unaware that singles are no longer produced for many songs (the change in charting only happened at the end of 1998), it is irresponsible for an encyclopedia to perpetuate ignorance. iMeowbot~Mw 17:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What? Dude, I'll well aware of all that. Is what I've rewritten not acceptable to you? Everyking 18:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, it is not acceptable. "In the U.S., it began its run as the album's third single on radio and television" is factually incorrect. It is running as a video and an album cut (or track, if you prefer) in the U.S. Even Wikipedia's article on Single (music) backs this up.
Perhaps you should discuss all your intended changes on the talk pages before making them in the article. We don't want valuable information to be capriciously removed, after all. iMeowbot~Mw 18:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then propose a revision and quit insulting me. Everyking 19:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for Everyking

Based on your edits to this article, you seem to think a number of things are important for it. Why?

  1. Why is it important to know the specific times at which performances of the song took place?
    I dont find this excessive, stating the starting time of the show at least.
    Why is it important?
  2. Why do we need more than one positive, one negative, and one descriptive quote by third parties in the album description?
    agreed there are definately way too many reviews, but 3 seems arbitrarily set.
    Hardly arbitrary. Three is one positive review, one negative review, and one discriptive quote.
  3. Why do we need more than one descriptive quote by the singer in the album description?
    I have no objection to the artist of the song being quoted more than once as long as it is not multiple significant quotes of more than say 4 or 5 lines in length.
    Why are they needed?
  4. Why are the sales figures for the Autobiography album significant for this song?
    its from the album, it should be on the albums page with a "see Autobiography (album) for sales figures".
    The song is from the album, but it was also an independant single. Why are the sales figures for the album significant for this song?
  5. Why are the promotion details for the Autobiography album significant for this song?
    its from the album, it should be on the albums page with a "see Autobiography (album) for complete promotional details".
    The song is from the album, but it was also an independant single. Why are the promotional details for the album significant for this song?
  6. Why are broken quotation marks important in this article?
  7. Why are other songs she sang at live performances of the song significant?
    its no biggie it doesnt add more than maybe 5 or 6 words at the most.
    Why are they needed?
  8. Why is it important to know what episodes of "The Ashlee Simpson Show" she sang this on?
    it was the first public introduction to the song, therefore it deserves inclusion.
    The fact that it was sung twice on the show is included. Why are the specific episode numbers needed?
  9. Why are uses of the song in television commercials important?
  10. How can something premier three times?

--Carnildo 04:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

comments and some rebuttals by  ALKIVAR™ 04:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I have an answer for all your questions. Who cares?! Every one of those questions are stupid and don't need to be asked in the first place.

Still questioning, Carnildo 05:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why you bother with your questions, as its obvious to me that nothing is doing to dissuade Everyking from being the mother hen of this utterly vacuous article. He reverts and restructures anything anyone contributes to this article--thankfully, this article and topic are outside the realm of things that matter on planet Earth, otherwise I guess I'd make a big stink about it. It was funny watching him dance around the fact that Simpson was booed at the football game. Everything he adds is rather comical. Question for Carnildo and others. Why bother? Maybe I'm going overboard, but it seems like he's working for a record label. Whether he's on the payroll or not is quite another thing...

Yeago 01:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is insane! I just wasted an hour of my life reading over these Ashlee articles that Everyking is obsessing over. I'm certainly glad that these are of absolutely no importance at all, because this is so far out of whack with the standards I've seen for other "artists", that I'm just literally in awe of what drives him to do this. Realize! - Rusty Shackleford

What drives me to do what? I've been writing encyclopedia articles. I have no "obsession". A better question would be what drives a person to want to delete half the content of these articles without consensus. Everyking 01:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WIP, consumer release won't be until 24 January

Thank you. Add it to the article at will. But is the release date for the US or UK? Or both? I've never heard anything about a US release date—was Shadow released as a CD single in the US at all?—and I was the thinking the UK single was due on Jan. 17, although of course they might have moved it back a week. And we shouldn't reference album reviews as though they're single reviews. Everyking 08:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Oh, I see what you mean. Universal Music is a French company, so Europe and not the US is the center of the universe. These discs were manufactured in the UK but are being distributed in several markets, U.S. included. Singles don't sell well enough to bother with country-specific pressings any more, and many retailers don't even bother stocking them. That's why no specific country is listed, the catalog number is the same everywhere: EU, Americas, Australia.
The album reviews are going to be the references available to readers. Singles released after their associated albums rarely receive separate reviews any more. I was alternating between noting that they are album reviews and not (reading the reviews makes it painfully obvious), but can certainly toss that note in.
The release date is straight from UMG's press department, but it's probably best to wait for retail copies to hit the shelves The advance copies sometimes differ in things like track order, and that's what I'm working from. iMeowbot~Mw 09:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't put album reviews up like singles reviews. It makes it look like La La, not Autobiography, got such and such rating. I managed to find some singles reviews for Pieces of Me. Probably some like that will be written when the CD single is released. If not, well, we just won't have any, then. I agree we may be wise to wait until the actual release to confirm some of the info. I'd really like to know if the CD is going to be released in the US, too. I will go ahead and add the image to the article, though. Good work getting that. Everyking 09:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"PoM" got separate reviews because it was released prior to the album, as explained above. Leaving them in will help to demonstrate that there was much to be said about the song outside Wikipedia, and that will be beneficial it another VfD attempt turns up in the future. Ashlee has only managed a fraction of the sales that even the Spice Girls made on their first release, so don't turn away from the bits that do help give the article an air of that mysterious notability factor :) iMeowbot~Mw 10:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You can cite them in the text if you want (I know RS at least already is), and you can give them as External links, but it must not be set up to appear that La La the song got 2/5, 3.5/5, 55/100, etc. Everyking 12:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Track listing

  • Catalog 2103875
    1. La La
    2. Endless Summer
    3. Pieces Of Me (29 Palms Remix Vocal Mix)
    4. La La (Video)
  • Catalog 2103876
    1. La La
    2. La La (Sharp Boys Remix)

[edit] New stuff

My gratitude to anyone who adds on my behalf that La La was certified gold by the RIAA in late March. [1] Everyking 03:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here, let me make it simple. I've rewritten the fourth paragraph in the article a bit to include a few new bits of info. Here's the old:

Following its release as a single in the U.K. on January 24, 2005, "La La" debuted at number 11 before falling. In Ireland, it debuted at number 18 on that country's chart in late January and stayed there in the next week. In February, the song debuted at number 10 on the Australian singles chart (where it stayed in its second week) and at number 98 on the Billboard Hot 100. "La La" is also currently being used as the backing music for a ThermaSilk shampoo commercial in heavy rotation on NBC television.

And here's the new:

Following its release as a single in the U.K. on January 24, 2005, "La La" debuted at number 11 before falling. In Ireland, it debuted at number 18 on that country's chart in late January and stayed there in the next week. In February, the song debuted at number 10 on the Australian singles chart (where it stayed for four weeks) and at number 98 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the U.S., where it eventually rose to number 86. The single was certified gold by the RIAA in late March 2005. [2] "La La" is also currently being used as the backing music for a ThermaSilk shampoo commercial in heavy rotation on NBC television.

The changes are:

  • Updated Australia;
  • Added Billboard peak (already in the table at the bottom, but should be mentioned in the text as well)
  • Added RIAA certification as gold.

So, would someone please copy and paste the new paragraph into the article? Everyking 19:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Meaning(is it true or not)

I have heard that the song was more closer to being about masturbation then sex. Plus if the song is about sexual fantasies then that makes me believe it is more closer to masturbation. Since that is what most people do with sexual fantasies masturbate. Also the rolling around on a couch thing that was taken out seems like it too since she was alone.

I guess no one disagrees with me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.80.187.222 (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AS-LaLa.jpg

Image:AS-LaLa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)