Jump to content

Talk:Shake It Off/Archive 1

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

Review

Simon (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Vox Media

Simon (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Time of Yahoo! live stream session

She later confirmed on August 13, 2014 on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon that a Yahoo! live stream session would take place on August 18, 2014 at 5pm.

I wondered which time zone was the one in which it was 5:00 PM when the live stream began. This particular sentence lacks a cited source. (The source cited at the end of the following sentence doesn't mention the date, much less the time, of the live stream but the source's website notes it was posted at 5:45 PM EDT on August 18, so the live stream must have been scheduled to start at 5:00 PM EDT.) --anon. 71.183.139.60 (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

'Haters'

I note the article makes extensive use of the term 'haters'.

This seems a tad colloquial for an encyclopedic project and I would suggest it be more appropriate if 'haters' were changed to either 'critics'.

First of all it's the word she used herself, so why not use it with quotation marks perhaps? However, it appears only once in the whole article (on the song's snippet) and then there's the word "detractors" so for me there's not a really a problem. --Sofffie7 (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The quotation marks proposal sounds like the best course of action, in my opinion.
Thanks for adding them Sofffie7 and User:Valiant, please sign your posts. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Racist claims

I question why there's a topic in the article for "Racist claims". One person made one statement without having seen the video, so it hardly seems like a relevant topic unless the NAACP gets involved. I'm leaving it for now because wiser heads should prevail over this, but since there's frankly next to no controversy other than one person's opinion, I'd recommend the section be deleted outright.174.126.239.232 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with the removal for that reason. I'd also note the person who made the claim is not an expert on race relations or anything like that, just an entertainer. Calidum Talk To Me 14:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I removed it. It makes absolutely no sense to include his opinion, especially since he admits to having never seen the video. APK whisper in my ear 01:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sample

"Shake it off" contains a sample of Toni Basil's 1982 mega hit "Hey Mickey". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.214.213 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles chronology

Hello, I'm not a registered user, but this doesn't mean that my contribution is less important. I made an edit removing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shake_It_Off_(Taylor_Swift_song)&oldid=627406076 ) the "Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles chronology" from the main template with this explanation "Wikipedia is not US-centric!". What I mean is that Wikipedia is not an US encycolpedia, and I believe that having the Billboard portion in the template is a little bit US-centric. If there is the Billboard chart, why shouldn't be there also the UK, Australia or Japanese chart, which are also quite relevant? Of course, this can't be done, as it is quite impratical. However my edit was immediataly reversed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shake_It_Off_(Taylor_Swift_song)&oldid=627406186 ), with summary that says "What is that even supposed to mean?!". I don't want to start an edit war, so I explained here what I mean. I believe that the section about the Billboard Hot 100 should be removed from the template. Sorry for my mistakes, I'm not a native english-speaker. P.S: I noted that the section is also in other recent number ones in the US, so I believe that I will bring my issue to WP:MUSIC and WP:CHARTS too. --188.135.197.238 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The song is an American song that reached the number one spot of the US 100 in no time. Your comment that Wikipedia is US-centric makes little sense here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Please, read carefully, because I didn't write that "Wikipedia is US-centric", I just stated that the inclusion of the US number-ones chronology is US-centric. I know that Taylor Swift is from the USA, but this isn't a reason to include the cronology in the template (really, why should it be? I don't get it), also Fancy (Iggy Azalea song) is a song performed by Australian and UK performers and still there is the same chronology in the article, so your point is not valid, sorry. I further explained my opinion HERE --188.135.197.238 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It should be removed from the infobox. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"why shouldn't be there also the UK, Australia or Japanese chart, which are also quite relevant?" Who said performance numbers from those charts shouldn't be included? There's nothing wrong with including them (reliably sourced, of course), along with including the Billboard chart performance. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
No one is saying the information on where this song charted should not be included in an appropriate "charts" section. There is no need to have a chronology of Hot 100 number ones in the infobox. You can end up having an infobox with a dozen or more of these and get completely out of hand. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Completely agree about the redundant use of the extra chrono template for Hot 100 progression. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson Cover

I do have a source for this. Kelly Clarkson covered it live, should it be in the article? http://www.people.com/article/kelly-clarkson-covers-taylor-swift-shake-it-off -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Length difference between song and video

So the length of the song is 3:39 but the video actually has one more part of the "shake it off" loop at the end of the song, making it 4:02 long. Should this be noted? 27.109.244.95 (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Future GA/FA

This link consists of details about recording and mixing techniques of the track and critical analysis of its production. Great add! —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "riaa":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the last edit.

It was just that I know the single was certified 4x platinum recently. Of course I don't know what it has sold but I get it. So again, my apologies. It won't happen again. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 11:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

LizBug parody

Should the parody, by Lisa Schwartz(girlfriend of Shane Dawson), from the popular Youtube channel LizBug be included? Dawson also makes an appeaence in the video. http://us995.cbslocal.com/2014/09/22/watch-lisbug-shakes-off-youtube-bullies-with-t-swift-parody/ -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say no, unless it has significant coverage. -- Calidum 22:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism

It is important to people to know about the similarity that this song has in its rhytm with the found at the song Hey Ya! by Outkast. Instead of delete the contribution I'm making with sourced content better do a research, provide valid & verifiable info to sustain your arrogant action of delete any content that doesn't like your point of view. I'm just focusing at the fact of similarity of both songs, maybe this could be of interest of some partners whose want to do a more deep research to find if it is possible to qualify this song as a plagiarism. Do you know the importance of that?[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.99.147 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This is original research and unacceptable in Wikipedia. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 04:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be mentioned at all unless there's a news report or article for it, and Taylor Swift and Big Machine Records get sued. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The song was influenced by Sam Cooke's "Shake"

It was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcgil (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Bella and the Bulldogs

Should it be noted that "Shake It Off" was featured in the Nickelodeon show Bella and the Bulldogs? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Shake It Off did LEFT the TOP 10 Billboard Hot 100

I think that you guys made a mistake Shake It Off did left the top 10 of Billboard Hot 100 on 10th January 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny1399 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Claim only black women are twerking in the music video

Someone added the claim the video was controversial because it showed only black women twerking. I reverted because looking at the video, that's simply not true. (look at the video around the 1:30 mark; there's at least one or two women that are not black) The user added the claim back, citing this website. That's not a reliable source. The about page for the site reveals it's written by a couple with no evidence of journalistic training or editorial oversight. (plus it says "you can find the duo here, collectively shooting the shit, at their water cooler.") Sounds real professional, especially when making claims about a living person. The author is insinuating Swift and the people behind the video are racist (the title of the citation is "Taylor Swift’s 'Shake it Off' is Most Certainly Racist"), so I'm removing this claim per WP:BLP. APK whisper in my ear 01:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Shortcut: Whether or not "only black women are twerking" is completely irrelevant. Without reliable sources discussing that question or a supposed "controversy" about it, there is nothing to say here. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Parody of video

There is a parody of the video at the end of the movie Trainwreck. I know this from seeing the movie, so I do not have a reference. Maybe someone will see this mentioned in a review of the movie or interview and that could be cited. If so, then mention of this could be included somewhere in the artilce. 131.230.109.78 (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)MCS

  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgvGjAhvIw

Requested move 10 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus clearly opposes this move. (non-admin closure) Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


– The Mariah Carey song was viewed 2,075 times last month;[1] the Taylor Swift song 17,850 times.[2] Unreal7 (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose WP:NCM In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if we ignored WP:NCM considerations, the traffic spike can easily be attributed to as recentism: Taylor Swift's song is more recent than Mariah Carey's (and thus greater news spikes and interest now), but both Carey and Swift, and their respective songs, are equally notable in their own right. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per Zzyzx11 noted, Taylor Swift's was viewed more because it is more recent. We need to keep her name in the page name. Meatsgains (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Zzyzx11, but rewording to "both Carey and Swift songs are equally notable in their own right." © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:RECENTISM clearly recentism, since it's a relatively new song -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shake It Off (Taylor Swift 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shake It Off which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit not mentioned?

There are reliable sources:

An IP editor added two paragraphs about the lawsuit. Altamel (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Shake It Off. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Not done - no consensus (page mover closure) - this has already been relisted and I think that the high participation shows that relisting it again would just result in further deadlock. DrStrauss talk 11:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


– While I realize this undoes last year's move request, Taylor Swift's song is not the primary topic, and it only seems that her song is the primary topic because of WP:RECENTISM. Mariah Carey's song came out in 2005, and it still proved to be a hit. The reason it seems that Swift's song is more successful is mainly because of the digital age; downloads were just getting big when Mariah's song was released and they were big when Swift's song came out. This is a move request that has been denied once and accepted the second time, but I feel this is sufficient reasoning to move things back to where they were. 76.116.198.27 (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

What did people do before the "download" era? Oh, that's right, they bought albums. What does one have to do with the other. I don't see how they relate.
The thing is, I totally disagree with the premise of the argument. But I agree with the end result. There is no reason why a song article should not have a parenthetical. But my reasons are best discussed in a forum larger than this. It is an overall issue that WP needs to address, not specific to one song.Kellymoat (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nope. Check out the See You Again argument. Unreal7 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Swift song gets 86.9% of the page views; it's clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a WP:TWODABS situation.[3] It also has more long-term significance than the Carey song as it is significantly more prominent.--Cúchullain t/c 20:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Obviously Primarytopic, I would suggest someone closes this rather pointless RM. –Davey2010Talk 20:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. While this is certainly more visited than the other example listed, it would seem like recency bias to oppose this. There are so many songs also titled "Shake It Off" on the disambiguation page, so to clarift, we should change the page title. Aleccat 02:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's nothing to do with recentism - Looking at the disambig page this song by a long mile is the PRIMARYTOPIC here without a question og doubt, Out of all those songs on that disambig only one is wikilinked and even that song doesn't come close to being PRIMARYTOPIC, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Both songs received heavy airplay when they were released, so it would be best if there was no primary topic. Similarly, two songs titled Take a Bow, one by Madonna and one by Rihanna, were both number ones and they have separate articles without a primary topic. Although there is an article for the British TV series and Leona Lewis song, if it was just those two aforementioned songs, there would not be a primary topic, which proves that the Taylor Swift song should not be the primary topic. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:80C2:210F:17F1:8DAE (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Striking sock vote.--Cúchullain t/c 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Neither has more "long term significance" than the other. Taylor's was the 13th biggest song of 2014, Mariah's was the 15th biggest song of 2005. Both articles should follow "Shake It Off (Xxx song)" format.Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – They're completely different genres too. Plus with a dab page of just two articles and a whole lot more, neither Taylor nor Mariah takes the cake as the primary topic. 2604:2000:524F:5000:F194:A2D9:9C18:F8A5 (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Striking sock vote.--Cúchullain t/c 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - some of the accounts supporting this move have only just been created. Anyone else suspecting sockpuppetry? Unreal7 (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Both the IP votes geolocate to the same area as the nominator. Smells like sock to me.--Cúchullain t/c 14:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pointless support does not seem that the 2nd RM on Talk:Shake It Off (disambiguation) was particularly well attended, but ambiguated it was, and ambiguated it might as well remain for now. This is such a generic title another one will be along sooner or later and Taylor Swift's time will pass, as Mariah Carey's has. In this case at least all the internal links already have (Taylor Swift song) so it won't need a lot of fixing. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Not sure those two IPs are socks. But folks, register for accounts. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The DAB is an encyclopedia in itself, the evidence that there's a primary topic is underwhelming and it seems unlikely. Andrewa (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The numbers are pretty convincing [4]. 65.215.127.194 (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The pageviews stats are pretty convincing, indeed. Clear primarytopic. Dohn joe (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Taylor Swift song meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I didn't participate in the RM discussion at Talk:Shake It Off (disambiguation). I believe that a page mover Calidum was unaware of the discussion made several months prior to that one. Nevertheless, even that move must have benefitted most readers who want to read the whole article about the Swift song. Reading the stats, well... I admit that pop culture has influenced the statistics. I would have "supported" the reversal because... it's pop culture. However, the numbers convinced me not to force readers to be directed to the dabpage or the Carey song article. WP:LEAD says that readers can choose to either skim through just the introduction or read the whole article. I wonder how many readers would want to read the whole Swift song article. The guideline says that most readers would read just the intro and then go elsewhere. Implicitly, the same can be said about readers of the Carey song article. The only strong point to "oppose" the move is... the statistics. However, when will the stats change? Three years since its original release, the song is still popular, so let's wait for several more years then. George Ho (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Thankyoubaby has hit the nail on the head here with: "Taylor's was the 13th biggest song of 2014, Mariah's was the 15th biggest song of 2005." The two songs are equal in significance, but at different points in time, and the page view discrepancy is purely down to WP:RECENTISM. This is a textbook example of why pageviews should always be taken with a pinch of salt in assessing primary topics.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing has changed from last year. That the Carey song was big in 2005 is no reason to ignore the much higher lifetime charts and certifications of the Swift song. As the proposer of last year's move I'd note that I made no argument based on WP:RECENT statistics on page views so her song is the primary topic because of WP:RECENTISM is farcical. feminist 02:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revisiting Old Topic

Just putting in my two cents on the now completed discussions about whether Shake It Off should be a dab page or remain as it is. At the risk of being incivil, I cannot believe you people cannot see the recentism sitting right in front of your face. This should be a dab page, period. If, come 2040 or so, Taylor Swift's song (which I must confess, I am unfamiliar with) is still the clear "winner" of the popularity contest, then fine. But it's unbelievably ignorant to think that this decision was not influenced by, if not decided by, the relative recency of the two songs. I guess if Taylor Swift has a hit about her new copper coin clad driveway, that we'll move Penny Lane to the new song as well. Sheesh. Unschool 05:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. While I do know the Swift song, it is astounding that it would be ruled the PTOPIC when the Mariah song also exists. They were both rather big hits.-NØ 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
As somebody who follows these things very closely, I think there's little reason to doubt that Taylor's song won't be the "winner". But that doesn't matter. It's not as if one is a massive #1 hit, and the other is an obscure #90 hit or something. They are both #1s. Neither owns the title. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Title

Why is this article titled "Shake It Off" when there are other uses of this title, including another song with the same name, so the article should be titled "Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song)". Billiekhalidfan (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Scrolling up through this talk page, it seems that the consensus across multiple years has been that it should be "Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song)". It looks like somebody moved it without consensus. The reason I think it should be "Shake It Off (Taylor Swift song)" is that I believe Taylor's isn't MORE popular than Mariah's. It's because it isn't exponentially bigger than Mariah's to the point where one should have full control of the title. They are both #1 hits. Somebody should probably move this. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually there was consensus to move the page. In addition to the two move requests which you can see on this page, there was another one in May 2016, which you can see here: Talk:Shake It Off (disambiguation)#Requested move 28 May 2016. There was consensus to move to the current title there.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Cover versions and usage in media

This section seems problematic to me and just reads like WP:TRIVIA. What do you think, HĐ? --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m not HD, but I think it definitely is trivia and doesn’t need to be added. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I think while much of the section is trivia, some can be kept adhering to the guide at WP:SONGCOVER and WP:SONGTRIVIA, HĐ (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Doggy54321 and HĐ. Thank you for actioning, HĐ. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Release date

Why in this article does it say that the song was released on August 19, 2014, but in the article on the album 1989, it says that it was released on August 18? Hello513 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shake_It_Off/Archive_1&oldid=1164977186"