Talk:Happy (Pharrell Williams song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Dancers in the video

I'm starting and maintaining my own annotated list to the dancers in the 24 hour dance video. This includes screenshots of the dancer credits. http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/2014/03/roberts-ultimate-guide-to-all-24-hours-of-pharrell-williams-happy-video/Robert J Nagle (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Happy Iranians

Reaction to people dancing to the song should be on the page about the song; there is already one line about it in the song's page; can be expanded 331dot (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Fairly significant political event. Deserves its own article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
People being jailed by a government like Iran's for political reasons happens on a daily basis. This time, it just deals with a popular song. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – This 'political event' can have its own sub-section in the "Music video" section that already deals with all those tribute videos, and "Happy Iranians" can be left as a redirect to that section, but I don't think it's significant enough to have a separate article and should be merged. — Mayast (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Political, distinct, different class. Gordo (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
What exactly does that mean? 331dot (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Honestly, sad as it is, events like this happen so often in dictatorships that we could fill wikipedia with just articles on each arrest. It is best to merge it here. It's not caused any effect or virality in in the West or Iran that warrants it having its own article. JTdale Talk 12:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. — Mayast (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Did not realize Iran was a dictatorship, dont they vote? I think countries have a right to determine a different level of censorship to the West. People and things get banned all over the world, everyday. Even in the USA, but i agree no need for separate article.--Inayity (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the merge. That is all.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 11:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - There were many significant political interpretations of Harlem Shake but none of them merited articles of their own and this is usual business in Iran. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The merge is pretty necessary since the article references the song way more than any other "political issue". It only seems to make sense. ZoharN (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - agree w/everyone else who has supported the merge.. Mfribbs Talk 12:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I will support this merge for now, but if there is going to be more coverage on this topic on the future, which it may likely do, then I would probably recreate the article. 和DITOREtails 15:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I will support this merge. It might be a good idea to keep it a separate article, have a short summery in the Pharrell Williams song, and have a see "Happy Iran Incident" at the top."
  • Support - "Happy Iranian" is not big enough impact news that it needs it's own article. People get arrested all the time around the world for silly things. Tarikur (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the purposes of both articles are better served if 'Happy Iranian' is a part of the Pharrell Williams song article.Myopia123 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 'Happy Iranians' lack concepts and have no purpose for an article on its won. It is related to 'Happy' anyway, and that the situation is weird to be on its own article. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 12:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Fairly insignificant political event and can be hedged down and included. Seriously hedged. And it really only exist in connection with the song, so merge. --Inayity (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- Agree with other editor's comments who are supporting merge. Do a bold a merge. That's it.--Chamith (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Just a warning that the In popular culture section should contain only properly sourced examples that are bona fide cultural references. "In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers, which means that they must have a reference to a reliable source that verifies BOTH that the song was included or referenced AND that the event actually qualifies as "popular culture". A middle-school graduation might've played that song, but it doesn't qualify as main-stream popular culture. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if Tacky, the parody done by Weird Al Yankovic, might be notable enough for popular culture. --Sd-100 (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

24-hour music video technicalities

The video is actually six unlisted four-hour youtube videos in a playlist. They are:

They are hosted on I Am Other's channel and can be downloaded from youtube for watching offline using regular methods. (This takes up lots of hard drive space though.) 12.218.76.10 (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ataraxia link

What is this about? Btljs (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Total sales of "Happy"

According to the most recent figures, "Happy" has sold 1.62 million downloads in the UK, which itself is enough to make it the 20th biggest selling single of all time. However, its sales total is boosted to 1.87 million by the 25 million streams that it has so far clocked up, going by the 1:100 ratio decided upon by the Official Charts Company (OCC) i.e. 25 million streams = an extra 250,000 "sales." Now here is where it gets a bit unclear. Streams are now included when calculating a single's official chart position, AND when awarding silver/gold/platinum status ("Happy" is now 3x platinum). But streams are NOT included in a single's overall sales - therefore it has still only "sold" 1.62 million, and so its position in the all-time tally (currently 20th), is based on that figure, NOT 1.87 million. Confusing - yes, double standards - maybe, and I wish the OCC wouldn't do things like this, but there we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.194.197 (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you are a bit confused, but the difference between chart (let us call them 'units' to avoid confusion) and sales is well established as is the difference between sales and certifications. In olden days the weekly chart was based on a small sample of shops while certifications could be based on how many copies the record companies shipped out to shops. Once a record had been deleted it was assumed that all the copies had been sold (usually but not always - a popular artist would have a big run of copies shipped in anticipation of high demand e.g. 200K which would make it a silver record before it had sold any) and total sales could be calculated. These were not an aggregate of chart units for the weeks on the chart.
Since 2004 there have been various rules for calculating the charts based on downloads like for a bit there had to be a physical release that coincided and so on. So there are songs that had some of their potential sales excluded from the chart only to be added in later. In 2012 the OCC started adding up streams but not counting them towards the chart, so 20M of Happy's streams didn't affect its chart positions (all the times it was at number 1). Now they are using streaming to calculate chart positions BUT THESE ARE NOT SALES and the OCC doesn't claim they are (although it needs to get its terminology standardised for 'chart sales' 'combined sales' or 'chart units') and they still have a Sales Chart just to make this clear (as well as a streaming chart and indeed a downloads chart!) A million seller is a song that is downloaded a million times NOT one that streams X million times etc. Charts in many countries (like USA) have used radio plays as part of the calculation for position but these were never counted as sales either. It's less double standards and more rules that change over time as technology changes (like points in F1 - don't get me started).
Happy went triple platinum on mainly sales plus 200K units from streams that didn't count towards the chart plus about 50K that did. Btljs (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

US chart order

Synthwave.94 continues to list the US adult charts before the Hot 100, contrary to MOS:CHARTS which shows in one example the US Alternative Songs coming after the US Billboard Hot 100. Alphabetical order is used for countries, but the main chart – in this case, the Hot 100 – should always come before any secondary country charts such as Adult Top 40 and Adult Contemporary. This style is present in every good and featured song article I have looked at. I would like to ask Synthwave.94 why s/he continues to edit this contrary to the MoS and ask other editors for comments. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The example you're citing is incorrect and should be corrected. Charts are always listed in a correct alphabetical order and the Billboard Hot 100 is not an exception to this rule. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Do you mean to tell me that S&M (song), 4 Minutes (Madonna song), Diamonds (Rihanna song), Halo (Beyoncé song), Hey Baby (No Doubt song), and numerous other good/featured quality song articles also have it wrong? Admittedly not all of these have the secondary charts in correct alphabetical order, but you see the common theme: Hot 100 (the main chart) is first. I've provided MOS:CHART that shows why the Hot 100 should be first; you've provided no link that shows why secondary charts should come before the main one. Notifying WP:SONGS and WP:CHARTS of this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No it isn't. MOS:CHARTS only says "Charts should be arranged by country in alphabetical order" (which exactly supports what I'm saying). It's not written anywhere that the Billboard Hot 100 should be listed first. The fact good/featured articles copy feature this error is definitly irrelevent, by the way. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. "by country in alphabetical order". Countries go in order. The example of US Alternative Songs coming after US Billboard Hot 100 on that very page proves you are wrong. It is a disservice to the readers because the first time they see a country, they expect to see the main chart for that country. In this old version of the page, when Adult Alternative Songs was still listed before I replaced it with Rock Airplay, a reader could have easily assumed that "Happy" only peaked at #14 in the States. Why should secondary, genre-specific charts go before the main chart that encompasses all-genre airplay, sales, and streams? That does not make any sense whatsoever. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I know I'm talking about. Charts are always listed in a correct alphabetical order and it doesn't matter how important there are in a specific country. The reader is clever enough to read a chart table organized in a correct alphabetical order. A correct example is the table chart you can see in the "Imagine" article (a featured article, by the way) : the Easy Listening chart is listed before the Billboard Hot 100 in order to respect the correct alphabetical order which is required for table charts. Again it's not written anywhere that the Billboard Hot 100 should be listed first for the US charts, so your point is incorrect. Synthwave.94 (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It is shown in an example on the MOS page. May I ask what policy or guideline you're going off of? –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The example is incorrect and, of course, nobody realized the order of the charts was not in a correct alphabetical order. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect according to who? You, because you don't like it? Where are the policies or guidelines in your favor? I'll wait. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect according to MOS:CHARTS, which doesn't say that the Billboard Hot 100 should be listed first. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
As you've already been told several times, MOS:CHART shows the example of the Billboard Hot 100 coming before other US charts even when it contradicts alphabetical order. So your use of that to back your claim doesn't work, and you don't have any policy or guideline backing your preference when I've already shown you that the style guide (that you for some reason are using) clearly backs up my views by way of example. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect. MOS:CHARTS doesn't specify anywhere that the Billboard Hot 100 should be listed first. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Synthwave, you are wrong, the Hot 100 is the most important chart for US Billboard and should be first always. No genere and component chart can override it in a list. Its the same actually for all other markets as well. Why would you even think otherwise. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No, a correct alphabetical order is always required for table charts, no matter how important a chart is. The Billboard Hot 100 is not aan exception to this rule. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinging: Kww, SNUGGUMS, Tomica, Calvin999, IPadPerson, Azealia911, and Joseph Prasad – a few editors off the top of my head who I know work heavily in music- and chart-related articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The Hot 100 chart is the main chart; all other, Adult, R&B, Dance or whatever other from Billboard are components of the main chart, thus I have to agree with Chase, the 'US Billboard Hot 100' should always go first! — Tom(T2ME) 18:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Based off of my reading of peoples points, and policies / examples given, I agree with Chase. In line with policy, that clearly shows an example of the hot 100 being listed before a genre-specific chart, a countries main chart should always come before subsidiary charts. Azealia911 talk 18:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have never seen charts on songs in the order Synthwave.94 is trying to place here. I see how the editor could think this, but looking at Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song), Makes Me Happy, All You Need Is Love, I Really Like You, or even Williams' own single Marilyn Monroe (Pharrell Williams song), it appears Chase is correct in this matter. And looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts#Original (manual) chart format, brings more to show that. Component charts come after the main chart. Same with albums, looking at Ready, Steady, Go! (album) or 1989 (Taylor Swift album). -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
For US Charts, the Hot 100 should be the first one listed in song articles and the Billboard 200 first in album articles. However, there are only 3 components to the Hot 100 (sales, airplay, and streaming), the rest are simply genre-specific charts. Regardless, other charts listed after the Hot 100/Billboard 200 can/should be done alphabetically. The same thing for other country's main chart and genre charts. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
As previously stated, Hot 100 should be listed before any other Billboard charts since that is the primary chart. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea who decided to think this way but a correct alphabetical order is better to help the reader read the charts sections more easily. Moreover the Billboard Hot 100 is not more important than any other chart in the US : it is only more famous. All other charts in other countries are always listed in a correct alphabetical order and the US charts shouldn't be an exception to the rule. Sure the problem only happens when there those Adult Contemporary charts, but yet it's still not a reason not to keep a perfect alphabetical, especially when the table chart is very big. The readibility goes over the "importance" of the charts. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Synthwave.94, If you really have such a huge issue with the layout of charts in the policy, take it up at that talk page and motion to have the policy changed, but until that happens, we're following it. Consensus has clearly been reached to keep the chart order the way it was. Azealia911 talk 00:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I hope you're not going to say that it's more "readable" when you don't follow a correct alphabetical order? Several examples provided above are incorrect by the way, as the other US charts in these articles are placed in a correct alphabetical order. However if it can be changed then I'm going to go ahead. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Synthwave.94: I changed the charts back in response to the overwhelming opposition to your preference here, but you said the discussion isn't finished. When will the discussion be finished? Obviously you're not going to change your stance, and you're the only one supporting it. You can't WP:STONEWALL forever. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing here and is not finished yet. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It would have been polite if you had more clearly noted the discussion at this talk page and/or notified the participants in this discussion on their talk pages. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to solve several problems at the same time and I didn't think about it. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Number of U.S. charts listed

There are way too many US charts listed. For a hit of this magnitude it is not notable whether it reached number 1 in the US Hatwearing Chart or whatever. The UK minor charts aren't listed and if every country listed as many as the US then the list would be horrendous. Stick to major national charts unless the subject is a minor hit in the main chart but a big hit on some other chart or in some way notable. Btljs (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

All these US charts are official and there's no reason to remove them. The song was highly successful and this is the reason it appears on so many charts. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a given that a major hit in a national chart will also chart in other minor charts. It charted in lots of UK charts and no doubt others around the world. If every nation insisted on listing them all then the list would be ridiculously long. Just put a summary if you want. Like "number one in thirteen US charts". Btljs (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You need to discuss it at MOS:CHART first in order to reach a consensus about the removal of these specific charts. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Btljs, your point of view doesn't not represent a consensus as you just mentioned your argument earlier today and then declared it was the consensus view. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Liz No I didn't. Synthwave.94You have a cheek talking about consensus when you are fighting a one person battle against the prevailing view on chart order. When are you going to allow it to be changed given that since May all the people who have commented on the order of charts have gone against you? Ironically, I actually agree with you that it should be alphabetical but I won't support stupidly long lists of minor charts that are of no interest to most readers. Stick them on a music forum where they belong. Btljs (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, as it's another one (however I'm glad to see you agree with my point). I agree with you that the list of US charts may be a little long, but keep in mind the song was highly successful and this is the reason why there are so many charts. There are numerous other articles which use Billboard charts in a more limited number because the songs which are mentionned were less successful. Again I suggest you to talk about it at MOS:CHART. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You quote WP:BRD at me. You haven't followed it. See "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted." I was entitled to revert your reversion but you shouldn't have reverted twice without discussion. You are not a consensus of one. You should have left my original 'Bold' change until the discussion reached consensus - otherwise nobody can see that there is anything to discuss, that's the point of BRD. Btljs (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I undid your edits first saying that should discuss it on the talk page while you didn't respect it because you restored your undiscussed changes. Anyway you need to reach a consensus to see these US charts removed (or maybe should you find an alternative option ?) Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I deleted the one disallowed chart US Dance/Mix Show Airplay because the song is on US Hot Dance Club Songs. Before adding any other US charts please review/consult WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS#Single charts & WP:CHARTMATH. < The policy is already established.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Well that's one down - a few still to go in my opinion. I've raised it in Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Number_of_US_genre_charts_included Btljs (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Iknow23: : Before making further disruptive edits, see the discussion started by Btljs, thanks. Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is disruptive to NOT follow the current guidelines reached by consensus. Change ONLY if a new consensus for change is reached. Since there is insistence on continuing tendentious editing to restore contentious edits against current consensus, the article should be tagged with "This article does not conform to current consensus and ownership is claimed by... You may read but not edit."—Iknow23 (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Current" guidelines are incorrect and they are badly formatted. Would you make me believe that a correct alphabetical order is less important than the socalled "importance" of charts and their components ? The answer is definitely "no". Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Pointy edit warring in namespace is not the avenue for arguing guidelines you don't agree with. The project talk page would be your next best bet, but everyone there agreed that your preferred version is flawed. What does that mean now? Drop the stick and move on. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No, you started edit warring and you continue to do, introducing a bady formatted format. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't introduce anything. It's standard format for music articles as evidenced by the MoS for record charts (whenever you're not edit warring to your preferred version). It takes two to edit war, but don't forget that this war wouldn't be happening if you simply chose to respect the consensus, even if you don't agree with it. This will be my final reply to you here, since you are obviously refusing to quit beating a dead horse. My warning to you on your talk page stands: restore your version of the article again (or do so at the MoS page), and this will go to ANI. This has been discussed too extensively, with the community preference too overwhelmingly obvious, for you to continue editing according to your own preferences. Cheers. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Release date

The song was already in the Dutch Top 40 a month before its 'official' release date, which seems inconsistent. It's a bit fuzzy what a release date even means in this digital age. Is it the moment a physical single becomes available? That means many songs would never be 'released' at all these days. Shouldn't it simply be the moment the song first becomes available for (legal) download? In that case, Happy was first released as a part of the Despicable Me 2 soundtrack, several months earlier.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Happy (Pharrell Williams song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

best selling single in new zealand

BEST SELLING SINGLE IN NEW ZEALAND?? I THINK NOT HAPPY HAS SOLD 90000 WHICH IS PRETTY DARN GOOD BUT CANDLE IN THE WIND BY ELTON IS STILL THE BEST WITH OVER 150000 COPIES SOLD AND WILL REMAIN THE BEST SELLER 21:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)21:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)21:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.188.15 (talk)

Changing first mention of 24-hour video to an external link

Even though it is listed in "External Links", making the first mention of "24hoursofhappy.com" into an external link itself will make it easier on users. Mapping Data (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Happy_(Pharrell_Williams_song)/Archive_1&oldid=1159294618"