[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Elephunk

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

Reviews

[edit]

The Rolling Stone Review has the wrong rating, its 2 out of 5, not 2 and 1/2 out of 5, also the link given doesn't work, The updated link is at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/elephunk-20030618 Crazychrisr92 (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get retarded

[edit]

this needs to tell us the producer of the silly album The track listing shows the 3rd song of the album as "Let's Get It Started". Since that's the name of a radio edit of the song "Let's Get Retarded" (which is the original name of the track) I'm changing it. --Gusutabo 12:44, 17 January 2007

I agree entirely, but it seems the listing has been changed back under the premise of vandalism. To whomever is making such an edit: "Let's Get Retarded is not vandalism; it is the correctly listed title for the original release. "Let's Get It Started" has never been on this album but was only released as a single. Wikipedia is a place for encyclopedic, content not partisanism. ☭ Zippanova 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page doesn't seem to be properly protected, as the vandalism is continuing to happen. I would however, correct your statement that '"Let's Get It Started" has never been on this album'. It was, in fact, included as a bonus track on later editions; but appended, and not in place of the original. -Crimson Bleeding Souls (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Album listing should have the track listed as "Let's Get Retarded" to accurately reflect the tracklisting as produced and released as the Black Eyed Peas. "Let's Get it Started" refers explicitly to the single/censored version, not the original. As such, I'll mark this page as being watched, and put it under semi-protected to prevent further vandalism by those offended by the original content. 99.16.29.106 (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it keeps getting reverted. I corrected it, and added footnotes explaining the difference between the single, bonus track, and original. We'll see if it helps or not. JoeD80 (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People just keep changing it back to "Let's Get It Started"! Gah! I've even put a message there, but it keeps happening. Can't we get some protection or something? ※ gtw 07:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has not gone away. People keep updating the page to contain the correct name of Track 3, which is Let's Get Retarded and it keeps getting reverted every single time. I'll try updating it once more and hopefully not get caught up in an edit war. ak47wong (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently made an edit changing Let's Get Retarded to Let's Get It Started. I deeply apologize for making that change as I thought I was trying to do good. People have constituted it as vandalism. I was mistakenly unaware of this and again, I apologize and take full responsibility for it as I did not see the talk page nor the note. It will not happen again. Thank you. Geo g guy (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus Songs

[edit]

Where can I find these songs?

  • "La Paga" ft. Juanes (Latin version)
  • "Where Is the Love?" ft. 2pac (DJ Menace mix)

I've been checking if they are mentioned anywhere else but here, and couldn't find anything Lironhallak (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find these songs:

[edit]

Uh we shouldn't be advertising file sharing software here, so I removed the comment that was here. JoeD80 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The E.N.D remixes

[edit]

I noticed it stated what songs were remixed on their first two albums, why not here or on Monkey Business? --Trevorrrj (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elephunk. 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 to let others know.

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 22:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

It makes no sense that pop is listed as the primary genre of this album, despite at the time of the album's release, The Black Eyed Peas were a hip op group and had not yet transitioned into a pop group completely, listing this album as pop mainly is misleading. - SmithN41V 20:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Christgau in The Village Voice is unquestionably a reliable source and calls it pop in no uncertain terms. PopMatters (a bit less reliable, IMO) calls it hip-hop. I cannot see any reason for removing either of them (though drownedinsound seems to be a blog and adds no value to the discussion).
Pretending a source says R&B not pop when it says pop but not R&B isn't even worth discussing. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't try to figure out the genre ourselves, and it's especially useless to do so based on what the band was doing before the album was released, as a group can change genres. Instead of working it out ourselves, we look at the published reviews so that we can summarize them for the reader. If the reviewers mostly agree that the album is pop (and they do) then it doesn't matter how outrageous that might seem. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Joesob and a steady parade of IPs from MariaJayHicky disagrees. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the only one who just picked up in the article, it refers to it as "rap album" so why was pop added? Joesob (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article says they are "alt-rappers". The article says the album is "the brightest actual pop album of 2003". I say you are evading a block. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Joesob: Please explain how Robert Christgau is suddenly not credible.[1] The Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Project:Music disagree with you. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joesob has been blocked as a sock of MariaJayHicky. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More socking by MariaJaydHicky. Blocking IP and page protection here. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More socks of MariaJaydHicky. Requesting page protection again. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another MariaJayHicky sock doesn't like that the BEPs are a pop act. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elephunk. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Elephunk. 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) 09:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elephunk. 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) 07:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elephunk&oldid=1196711636"