Talk:Bootylicious

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

Untitled[edit]

from VfD: By Alex

user {billc1028] as to the moderators decision to remove what i added as "completely off topic" i strongly disagree. it is a well known fact that tommy motolla changed the release date of this single with the specific purpose or preventing mariah from going to number one. it was evil and down right mean so if it's off topic to state that fact then the entire mariah part should be deleted. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billc1028 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Vfd'd but not listed by new user User:CPS. No opinion from me. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:13, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a notable hit single. I think User:CPS might have been influenced by an, um, "non-encyclopedic" definition that crept in. (disclaimer: I wrote most of the current content) Kappa 01:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Why don't we merge into Survivor (album)? Its not notable enough for its own article, but it is worthwhile information. Putting it into the album page makes sense to me, and if no one objects, I'll even do it. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 01:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We shouldn't be in any rush to delete #1 hit songs. Kappa is right about past... issues with the article. Samaritan 02:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • keep or merge. ~ mlk ✉ ♬ 02:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
  • Delete. A non-notable song. It had little impact in changing the face of music. Iam 03:27, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it's notability would come from being the first(?) #1 song where women openly exploit their bodies as sexual objects. Kappa 03:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete. How are they the first? Were you not around when Madonna was singing in the early 80s? Megan1967 05:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Ok the first in a generation. Also I don't remember any songs where Madonna boasts about her sexy body, I might be wrong. Kappa 07:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Delete. Does it make it notable because they boast about their sexy body? What kind of opinionated gratuitous argument is that? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a music magazine. Wikipedians have discussed this before and the general consensus was against adding individual songs to Wikipedia. That consensus unfortunately seems to have been stretched. Megan1967 23:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Commonly men sing about women's bodies and use that to objectify them and treat them as inferior. Conversely in this song, women are using their physical attributes to assert dominance and superiority. My opinion is that that makes it notable. Kappa 01:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • But because Destiny's Child sing about it that makes it okay to objectify women as sex objects when women know you dont need to show tits and arse on a music video to be accepted. Dominance and superiority ... let me guess you're a man right? Btw Bootylicious is co-written by a man, Rob Fusari. Nope I'm not convinced this song is anyway notable. I just think this entry is an excuse to justify sexploitation song under the subterfuge of notability and it aint notable at that. Megan1967 03:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • I don't think the "okayness" is relevant, so I'll drop that if you don't mind. Thank you for clarifying your thinking on notability. My impression is the opposite, that a song that is far more notable than many other songs with articles is being VfD'ed because it is regarded as offensive sexploitation. Kappa 04:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)~
                  • Well there's the rub.. There are *many* songs that *dont* deserve their own articles, however trying to tell those few one-eyed fans that and its considered by them to be blasphemous. Because it just happens to be "Bootylicious" doesnt mean that it's been singled out. If the song is not notable it shouldnt be on wikipedia altogether period. Megan1967 02:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with redirect, I think. Alphax (talk) 03:40, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It just doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. -- CPS 04:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • But you are saying it's not notable enough to be explained anywhere in wikipedia, like the album page or the Destiny's Child page. Kappa 07:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Survivor (album). [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 05:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • An obvious keep. Everyking 05:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap." "I agree with this one completely." (w:Jimbo Wales (Wiki is not paper.)) --Samaritan 05:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC), voted already
  • Merge to Survivor with redirect. A great song that is synonymous with Destiny's Child. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as appropriate. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge+Redirect --fvw* 07:51, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. No other track on the Survivor page has that level of info. Deserves own page, as per m:Wiki is not paper. Dan100 09:34, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Conversely, the Survivor album page is just a stub and could use some fleshing out. It would be nice to merge them so that all the information is in one place. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • So add a little bit about the song to the album page, then. There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have a separate article on a popular song. We should aim to have both the album article and the song article packed with info. Everyking 11:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Bootylicious is just a stub but I was hoping more would be added. That's much less likely to happen if it's merged/redirected, I certainly wouldn't do it myself. Kappa 18:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge/redir. Breakouts should be of necessity only. Niteowlneils 17:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable cultural reference, even if it is gross. Wyss 22:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 23:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment to the admin who tallies the votes: Disregard User:Megan1967's votes. It is a sockpuppet. Currently, all it's contributions are to vfd pages, it's talk page, and to song lists. Moce 06:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, not a sockpuppet. While Moce on the other hand has not contributed anything. Even their talk page and user pages are empty. Obviously the thing behind Moce is too gutless to criticise me in public and should therefore be moc(k)e(d)Megan1967 01:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Suspect sockpuppet Moce maybe user Kappa. I notice that on previous days prior to 23 Dec that Kappa was on roughly at the same time editing here. Megan1967 03:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I've confirmed it with a developer on IRC. The IP address matches with one of the removal of non-notable songs, and a message left on a previous vfd page that was considered no longer live. Moce 04:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Here's what I asked the developer to look at:[1] [2] and the developer came up with these: [3] [4] Of course, you can run it through a developer again if you think there was bias in the testing. And I certainly welcome you to ask a developer to see if I'm a sockpuppet of Kappa. Moce 05:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes I would welcome that as well. Kappa 05:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • The IP address is a publicly accessable one from a publicly accessable library lab. Anybody can log onto that IP address and edit. Since it is not a private address anybody can contribute from that address besides myself, so your excersise proves nothing. Besides which since you are a sockpuppet Noce your complaints should be dimissed. Megan1967 00:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Well, we just had a great time over in IRC over this. I asked the IRC denizens and the response was that we only have your word on whether or not that computer terminal is public or not. Given the numerous similarities in rhetoric, topic interest, viewpoint, and time with the other user matched by the IP address by the developer, the admin can use their judgment whether or not to count your vote. Anyways, if I had voted for this, my vote would have been delete on the grounds of non-notability. So to the admin who tallies the votes, discount my vote. Moce 08:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • If it's proven Moce is Kappa I would request to the admins that all votes by Moce and Kappa be declared null and void as its comments have done nothing but attack a genuine user such as myself. It is a common tactic on Votes for Deletion to accuse a person of being a sockpuppet. The fact that some is cowardly enough to hide behind a sockpuppet to attack me is pretty low thing to do. Megan1967 00:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • And furthermore there is a considerable number of edits made from that address and 99.99% are not my edits. I have no knowledge of the specific topics involved with those edits and I had nothing to do with them at all. Megan1967 01:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge&redir. Mikkalai 01:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. People please use your heads when you decide crap like this should be kept or merged. All the delete votes are correct. I've had to deal with it before, so I warn you not to repeat the mistakes of the past. I mean, come on, I actually had to go to a therapist to understand the insane results of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/867-5309/Jenny and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/La La. Make wikipedia something to be proud of and not a public toilet. The Crow 06:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Awful, but notable song. If it wasn't for this article I never would have known that Stevie Nicks was involved with this. Gamaliel 08:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing before I leave. I won't be around to see the conclusion of the debate since I'm flying out to spend the holidays with my family on my vacation. I apologize for bringing this whole issue into the public, I should have just kept within IRC, but it was just too good to resist. In hindsight, I should have just waited for the result of the debate because I seem to have diverted the debate from the merits of the article. I should have learned by now not to butt in other people's debates unless I actually contribute to it. So, I'm sorry to Megan1967 if you're really a genuine user, only in your heart you would know. I'm sorry to Kappa for getting in the middle of your debate and any stress this has caused. I'm sorry to everyone who was irritated about my butting in and happy holidays. Also, to all those voting keep, you all really need to have some standard when deciding to keep non-notable songs such as this one, the fanboys/fangirls are having a great time filling Wikipedia with songs from their favorite bands & artists. So, go back to talking about the article if you want I'd like to see the end result of the vfd when I come back from my holiday vacation in the new year. Once again, happy holidays. Moce 09:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. I'm still exhausted from my last strenuous vfd experience, so I'll just say the song is notable. Angel Tiger 21:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've never heard of this song. It has never been mentioned by any music authority as being notable. I did a google search and only came up with results that used the "bootylicious" as a word describing Destiny's Child and not talking about the actual song itself. If I were an admin, I'd delete this garbage to hell and beyond. Bonsai K 21:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. chocolateboy 22:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Expanded. Happy Holidays everyone :) Kappa 00:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 14:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comments/question: I give up on notability, it's way over my level for inclusion, and it seems to be way below other people's so no-one's mind is going to change. For people voting delete, I'd like to ask what if anything you would say about this song in the Destiny's Child article. As regards fanboys pushing their favorite bands, that could be avoided drawing a line using some objective criteria like sales or chart positions... BL sold an awful lot of copies. Kappa 17:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep that, it may be not the best song, but notable. Grue 20:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough. --Fibonacci 22:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge & redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:04, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -Ld | talk 21:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete <Jun-Dai 00:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)>The topic of the article itself doesn't seem worth an entry and nothing written in the incomplete and poorly-written article has served to change my mind. Certainly the energy spent on this vote could have been spent into turning the article into something more significant that might cause those of us who see it as non-notable to reconsider.</Jun-Dai>
    • I'm sorry it's badly written. Regarding incompleteness, as I mentioned I'm hoping that someone more expert than me comes along. I think it's better than the original entry, which I was happy to try to cleanup because it seemed like a notable single in an under-represented genre. Kappa 01:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • <Jun-Dai 07:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)>It's not so much that it's badly written, but that it hasn't really been written yet. This seems like a clear case where the song's significance should be clear and articulatable in a few years if it has had a lasting effect, at which point the article can be recreated by someone prepared to actually write the article. Banking on that effect now isn't very encyclopedic, and I discourage use of the wikipedia to promote things whose significance has not yet come to pass. If, however, someone were to write an article on the significance that the song has already had (which is by no means clear to me at this point), I would be happy to reconsider my position.</Jun-Dai>

151.203.196.127 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)What is wrong with you people? Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of all human knowledge. If people know stuff about the song "Bootylicious," there should be an article about it in which that information is contained. Where's the harm in having articles about all sorts of things? Geesh end moved discussion[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bootylicious CD Cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Bootylicious CD Cover.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues, and cultural significance[edit]

Music video section is poorly written. Also this song had a significant impact in the crossover of black urban culture to the mainstream, (in terms of women's body imagery), and that needs addressing. Please don't bother to respond indicating how poor a song it is, that is irrelevant to its cultural significance. Centrepull (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural significance section added.
Centrepull (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Glee[edit]

Deleted sentence 'It was used in Glee.' It's not specific enough, and 'Glee' needs disambiguation. Could someone who knows the details please remedy?
Centrepull (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonce says...[edit]

Deleted sentence 'In an interview, Beyonce claims that "bootylicious" is in the dictionary.' It is redundant as the previous sentence has a citation for the term entering the Oxford English Dictionary. This sentence has no reference as to in which interview Beyonce allegedly said this, and which dictionary she was referring to. Centrepull (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Losing shape[edit]

Article is slowly being degraded by poor edits. Removed untrue statement that Snoop invented the term. Removed (true) information that Snoop used 'bootylicious' in 1992, as nobody is claiming that Beyonce Knowles/Destiny's Child first used the term. Removed (again) implication that Beyoncé Knowles caused the phrase to 'enter the dictionary' in 2004. OED acknowledged and defined the term online, but this resulted from the popularity of the song leading to its mainstream adoption, rather than because of personal actions.

Paragraph on Knowles writing the song contradicts later paragraph re Rob Fusari. Does anyone know who really was the main writer of this song?

Amazing how much poor grammar this article attracts. Centrepull (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Term used early by Snoop, not coined[edit]

Removing the untrue and uncited 'Snoop invented the term 'bootylicious' claims again. Centrepull (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bootylicious. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bootylicious. 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: 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) 02:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bootylicious. 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: 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) 03:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bootylicious. 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) 03:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bootylicious. 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) 18:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bootylicious&oldid=1206375173"