Talk:Walk Like an Egyptian

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

The official site is an ALLOWED link[edit]

Read the exterenal links section and this a good addition providing additional information. There is NO reason WHATSOEVER to remove that link, so that link STAYS. KittenKlub 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't like people trying to go for 3RR for FALSE reasons. KittenKlub 22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the WP:External links:

  • Is it accessible?

Yes

  • Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)?

Yes

  • Is it entered correctly?

Yes

  • Is the link, in the context used, likely to have a substantive longevity?

Yes

  • Does it fall under a no category?

No it doesn't.

So please don't start wikilawyering if you never bothered to read the page and especially if you also start to push for 3RR. KittenKlub 22:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The official web site belongs in, and is in, The Bangles. This is not an article on the band. It is an article on the song. An external link to a site for the band is not appropriate to the article on the song, especially since the site for the band is already linked to in the appropriate article, as I have explained three times now. The link does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would have, because it isn't a link to anything about the song. Before suggesting that other people read the page, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Uncle G 23:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is allowed according to the document. It gives additional information. And please don't start edit wars and 3RRs to enforce your opinion. An official site offers previews, videos and much more information about a song. It is even the OFFICIAL resource on a song. It is not listed in links to be avoided. KittenKlub
      • Wrong. The link is to a site for the band, not a site for the song. This is an article on a song, not an article on a band, and the article on the band already has this link. How many more times? The official site, as far as I can see, offers none of the things that you claim. It has nothing specific on this song whatsoever. Uncle G 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I challenge your reasoning for once. It does NOT say that it is not allowed and it does not say that a song which is listed does not apply. What do you call previews? Isn't that something extra which we can't provide or have a very difficult time providing. KittenKlub 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I call previews is irrelevant, since the page that you are insisting that this article link to isn't a preview. Uncle G 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I have explained several times that it is allowed according to the document. Yet you ignored me over and over again. KittenKlub 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. I explained several times that it was not. I even linked to the style guidelines that apply. Uncle G 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I said that it was not in the document and I was ignored and then you even ignored this talk page by starting an edit war on other pages. That's called avoiding a 3RR. KittenKlub 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You weren't ignored, but you didn't actually mention this talk page in your edit summaries. And what applies to this article applies to those as well. These are articles on songs, not the article on the band; the article on the band already has this link; and the linked-to page provides no unique resource beyond what the article would have, because it doesn't have anything about the song. You've yet to show otherwise. Uncle G 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to list to be avoided it is neither 1. Nor 2. Nor 3. Nor 4. Nor 5. Nor 6. Nor 7. Nor 8. Nor 9. Nor 10. So it is allowed. KittenKlub 23:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong again. The link does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would have, because it isn't a link to anything about the song. That's point #1, right there. Uncle G 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does provide a resource. So #1 does not apply just because it provides other resources as well. You are wikilawyering. KittenKlub 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wrong. It provides no resource at all, as already explained, and you have yet to show otherwise. Accusing people that one disagrees with of rule violations and wikilawyering is not a way to make a good argument that supports one's case, and demonstrates that perhaps one's actual argument is weak. Please stick to the argument. Uncle G 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who started 3RRs and editwars on other pages and ignored talk pages because he wanted to delete OFFICIAL sites. We are talking about the resource created by the record label who made and own the song? Talk about hostility against the subject. So I am not the pathetic one here. KittenKlub 05:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The official site provides a video for this song and lyrics. Both are items which we cannot provide because it'll be a copyright violation. That makes it a unique resource on Walk Like an Egyptian. In fact the lyrics sites are always copyright violations, so it's the only place for the lyrics and videos. KittenKlub 23:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please point to where these purported lyrics are. I see no such lyrics. The site has very little actual text anywhere, from what I can see. Uncle G 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that finding something is difficult. I call this whole thing wikilawyering. YOu did find the video, or do you need help with that as well. It still makes it a unique resource. Just for that. And this whole way of arguing is wikilawyering, since we are talking about interpretation of details of "things normally to be avoided." That makes it your so called rule against an official site so incredible weak that it becomes an example of wikilawyer were your interpretation is used to push through your idea of how things you should done despite any clear rule. And you accuse people of violating a rule and start edit wars instead of discussion. The video and lyrics make it a resource and everything else is interpretation based on wikilawyering. Therefore the bottom line is that link stays since it IS ALLOWED. KittenKlub 05:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Signature[edit]

It would be useful to add the time signature of the song to the article. 192.250.34.161 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, especially considering that it is in common time according to this site and the sample of sheet music that can be seen here. Only if its time signature were more unusual or changing it might merit mention at all.--Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Section[edit]

Added Australian chart top position 118.208.218.138 (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marti Jones demo version: Interesting discoveries on "Crap From The Past"[edit]

Note: it is NOT meant to advertise the radio show. On his Sep 11, 2009 show, Ron "Boogiemonster" Gerber revealed that there existed a demo version by Marti Jones; not released at that time, but definitely existed before it was "sold" to the Bangles. Might be an interesting fact to know for some folks on here. -andy 92.229.158.56 (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that novelty-song show via the Internet Archive; just not that episode. I do however have the "No. 1 With a Bullet" compilation album of original songwriter demos; led by the Liam Sternberg / Marti Jones demo. I'm currently trying to find a secondary source referencing the production. Here is the discogs entry:
https://www.discogs.com/release/17746081-Various-Number-One-With-A-Bullet
Dano67 (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

merge[edit]

Please note : There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separate different versions of the same song. Please make known your opinions on the matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Kill A Mockingbird[edit]

Has anyone noticed that in the movie called "To Kill a Mockingbird" from year 1962 one kid performs same dance like the Bangles in their song. When his sister asks him what's he doing he replies:"I'm walking like an Egyptian" It means that Liam Sternberg statement where from he's got inspiration for a song is a lie. Or this is extraordinary coincidence only? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.141.141 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^This. Is what brought me here too. Interesting...121.83.20.31 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Tracks: The Bangles' "Walk Like an Egyptian"[edit]

For anyone who's interested in expanding the article, I found an excellent, in-depth article published by Mix magazine.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting all the cover versions[edit]

I deleted all the cover versions per WP:SONGCOVER which says that each cover version should be notable by itself, discussed in sources that discuss the song, and it should be a successful recording on its own, not just album filler. The guideline SONGCOVER is a fairly high bar; most of Wikipedia's song articles violate it with crufty lists of songs that don't merit inclusion. I looked through books and articles about "Walk Like an Egyptian" and none of the cover versions in our list were mentioned. Thus, they all fail the guideline and must be removed.

A song cover that is notable by itself would be something like The Clash singing "I Fought The Law" or Eric Clapton singing "I Shot the Sheriff". Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no argument that the songs you deleted generally wouldn't be considered notable enough for a standalone section, e.g. Last Christmas#Whigfield version or Last Christmas#Ashley Tisdale. The list you deleted was the equivalent of Last Christmas#Other cover versions. If you can interpret WP:SONGCOVER to prohibit such lists, it's the guideline that requires changing, as it doesn't reflect standard practice.—Kww(talk) 18:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion of the guideline's application at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Guideline_WP:SONGCOVER_is_a_high_bar. I invite everyone to weigh in there. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Use in other media"[edit]

Yes, Trefan9999, you restored them. You did not indicate why you restored them.

In July, 2016, I had removed them as "trivial single uses".

This section, by whatever name, is a collection of appearances in popular culture. It is a trivial list of WP:IPC uses. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


First, I'm sorry for not stating why I restored them.
I did that because I simply think those uses are significant enough to be mentioned there. Neither of them is just some few second mention. And because I think more consideration should be taken when deleting information, not when adding it. - Trefan9999 20:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying.
As a new<!> editor, you certainly might add some information that is not appropriate or have beliefs about content that do not agree with Wikipedia's guidelines.
In the present case, you feel we should include two particular uses of the song that you feel are "significant enough" to include.
The relevant issue here is Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, our policies and guidelines take a dim view of lists without selection criteria that are both objective and verifiable. While it is certainly verifiable that the song is used, there is no objective, verifiable reason to include these two uses and not other uses. This means a list of uses would have to include every use of the song in popular culture. As the same policies and guidelines would apply to every song article, "Happy Birthday to You" would include a list of thousands of uses of the song in movies, TV shows, books, plays, etc. over the past 124 years. This would create worthless clutter in many articles.
My preferred approach is to include only those uses that have attracted significant coverage. Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy..." to JFK got lots of coverage (and still does). I am unaware of any uses of this song that are the subject of full articles in major media.
Instead we have a section that would more honestly be titled "Uses in other media that some Wikipedia editor felt were significant enough to mention here". Much better than such a list would be a section of sourced discussion of the songs uses in "other media", if such sources exist. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are no articles about it in media, because the uses themselves are in media already. Yes, the rules are set for every song, but people still have common sense to not make a worthless list of uses of song that is used more like a phrase than a song. And since there is no way to measure "lots of coverage" it's still up to people to decide wich performances they'll include, othervise they should include every performance that got any coverage at all, because as you said this is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but a collection of information that people perefer to include.
But instead of having some list, we have "no list because one other Wikipedia editor felt there weren't any significant uses" even though at least two other wikipedia editors felt there were.
Oh. And while you're at it, should I send you a list of other song pages that also have "use in other media" section so that you can decide if they got enough coverage to be mentioned or are you going to delete them all now? Trefan9999 (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to send me a list of other articles that are not perfect, feel free to do so. That has nothing to do with correcting issues on this page. If you'd care to collect an indiscriminate list of uses of "Happy Birthday" or "The Star Spangled Banner", feel free to do that as well. Please do not include such lists in Wikipedia, however, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You may feel some uses are "significant enough" and you are entitled to your opinion. However, your subjective opinion is not an objective criterion. Yes, that is my opinion -- it's also the current consensus. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion about a typo
WP:IPS does not exist. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, typo. That's WP:IPC. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drum machine[edit]

User:Don_Williams seems to have strong opinions about the use of a drum machine in this song.

Diffs:

Several different editors (not just me) have reverted his changes for various different reasons, WP:OR was mentioned more than once.
I suggest (as I did in my recent edit summary) that he try to gain local consensus for his changes before making them again. -- 109.78.227.199 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the claim should be removed as a misinterpretation of the source, which is in Dutch and not linked to an online version. It can also be removed as an outlier, with only this one source supposedly making the claim. KittenKlub added the fact in 2006, but I am suspicious about a Netherlands chart source talking about Billboard chart performance plus cultural context. I am removing the claim myself not just because of the sourcing problem and outlier problem but because there are more sounds on the recording than just the drum machine not played by the band. There's a bongo sample on a synthesizer and other percussion played by non-band folks. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having been reverted repeatedly and he should know better and follow WP:BRD. For anyone else who might read this and need more context, the claim Don_Williams was allegedly disputing, and apparently disputing only because of the use of a drum machine, was that "The song is the first song by an all-female group playing their own instruments to top the Billboard singles chart." So if not this song then what song was the first by an all-female group to top the Billboard charts? I would easily believe that an all female singing group topped the charts before the Bangles, but it would surprise me to learn that an all female group that plays instruments had a number one hit before them. I think Don_Williams was placing undue emphasis on "play their instruments" which was beside the point. Many songs are heavily produced kinds of sounds and effects are used, the drum machine is an irrelevance. I think we might be getting too serious, it is a song about people walking funny.
Rather than deletion, or overly long attempts to nitpick about the drum machine, I think we could probably do some minor rephrasing. They are an all female group who play their own instruments. The song did top the Billboard chart.
I made a quick search trying find other sources, but didn't immediately find something suitable (I did find a tangentially related article which I'm surprised the LA Times published), but what I think it more important here, for this article, is to explain to readers that this song was unusual and probably "a first" without getting stuck on minor details. -- 109.79.171.234 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out they didn't whistle either! (I added it to the article because I think it is an interesting note about the composition and performance.) -- 109.79.171.234 (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The drum machine is hardly a special effect. It's a primary instrument in the song. If they programmed the drum machine, they played it. If someone else did the programming, it's the same as someone else playing drums on a song. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Williams (talk • contribs) 04:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walk_Like_an_Egyptian&oldid=1209957899"