This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Since the section that was written up in Phoenix New Times has been edited out, it seems inappropriate to say that the article has been mentioned by a media organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.208.59 ( talk) 14:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it will stick, but I got rid of the "dude humor", mostly just to see how long it will last. I won't revert it back if someone re-edits it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me you gutted the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 ( talk) 14:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
citation needed for the above POV claim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.153.237 ( talk) 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Serious question here. The page says "The song also features... dialogue spoken from the 1988 film Young Guns.[citation needed]" How would you cite that? Does a web site or book need to say the same thing so it can be referenced here? If you listen to the song's intro and watch the part of Young Guns where Billy the Kid (Emilio Estevez) meets the rest of the crew, that's what you hear. BrianAshe ( talk) 01:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused in this article it says that Regulate... G Funk Era was on Death Row but on the Wikipedia entry for Warren G it says that "Death Row Records did not sign Warren G" even though "Warren G was a regular contributor to many Death Row albums." Someone please explain this for me. Lukereiser 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright lets see if I understand this hah, Warren G was never on Death Row but Regulate was featured on a complilation that Death Row put out? If thats true why does it say under the Warren G wiki entry under labels "Death Row 1994–1996"? If that true than when it says ""Death Row Records did not sign Warren G" it is incorrect? Lukereiser 01:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to take the liberty of erasing "Death Row 1994–1996" from the Warren G article to preserve continuity. Thanks for clearing this up. Lukereiser 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoever wrote the plot of the song, well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.129.58 ( talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Very funny synopsis, it will get deleted so here is a permalink : [1] . LiamUK ( talk) 12:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason why the synopsis should change or be deleted given that it is a clear and faithful summary of the lyrical content of the song. The song is ridiculous, so any description of it will either be condescending or itself ridiculous. -- Notquitethere ( talk) 22:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
So the complaint about the article is that it was too thorough? That's what made the description "garbage?" That is absurd, PurpleChez and Catfish. The article seems funny because we aren't used to seeing erudite analyses of rap lyrics, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. The article was very accurate and informative about the narrative in the song, to the extent that even someone with no knowledge of urban slang could read the article and understand it. I agree that being funny isn't enough to qualify as encyclopedic, but surely being funny isn't enough to qualify as unencyclopedic either. In your crumudgenous crusade against anything that might bring a smile to someone's face you have weakened the article by removing valuable and accurate information about the topic. It's an article about a song. What could be more "encyclopedic" than a faithful, line-by-line description of story it tells? If it is too verbose and needs editing, then edit it. But completely removing the synopsis? Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 ( talk) 14:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
the last line of the first paragraph says, "from the 1998 film Young Guns." but it should read "from the 1988 film Young Guns." —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
137.187.221.9 (
talk) 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it still possible to reinstate the synopsis of discussion? Warthog581 ( talk) 23:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed when this gets radio play now, they fade out before the third verse? My only guess is one of the last lines by Nate Dogg 'if you smoke like I smoke then you're high like every day', obviously referring to marijuana, and 'your ass is a buster'. The drug reference can be easily bleeped out, and even 'ass' seems to slip by, or that could be bleeped or replaced easily. Was this song always censored? or is this a new development? Cander0000 ( talk) 09:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
In the United States, FCC actions are initiated by viewer/listener complaints, so songs/television shows are usually censored to the tastes of the audience. While one station in a large city can get away with using more objectionable or profane words, another station, playing the same song, in a smaller market, would have to have a more censored version in order to avoid an FCC complaint as their audience may be less tolerant. -- Kagurazaka1977 ( talk) 13:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
young guns came out in 1988 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.31.130 ( talk) 19:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The follow tag exists for just this situation:
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
Time to bring back the synopsis and put that across the top. Everybody wins.
This is one of the coolest/funniest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It makes the whole project worth it. Thank you. Gnat ( talk) 03:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I changed the link from the phrase "East Side" from the wiki article on "East Los Angeles Region" to the correct "East Long Beach" Don't get it twisted busters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.37.149 ( talk) 04:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
How does this synopsis differ from other original content (e.g. the plot section of movie pages)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.141.191 ( talk) 21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I personally found the Synopsis useful - yes it was very very detailed which made it kind of funny but it also made me understand what was going on which I had previously not (having missed the line about the gun being pulled on Warren). How about instead of deleting the whole Synopsis over and over someone should state that a short synopsis would actually be acceptable so that this article can be genuinely useful. This way it does not describe the song itself at all, only the meta information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.44.48 ( talk) 01:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Here you go - one synopsis from a third party source that does not contain a circular reference to Wikipedia. Surely, that must satisfy any requirement for a third-party source to the "humourous" synopsis.-- 86.26.12.247 ( talk) 21:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not someone who normally edits wikipedia, and am probably doing this discussion thing incorrectly. When Nate Dogg died, I came here specifically looking for a detailed summary of Regulate. Today on facebook someone posted a mirror of the excellent summary that had been posted here, but was removed for, according to this discussion, the flimsiest of reasons. This page is useless without the summary, and useful with it. The purpose of any encyclopedia derives entirely from its utility. Thus, you are impelled to restore the summary. QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.127.92 ( talk) 21:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why we can't have it. It is accurate (you don't need "sources" other than the song itself, it is pretty clear), and it is funny. I've never seen a better proof than the comments from certain people about the synopsis ("WE MAY AS WELL THROW ALL THE STANDARDS OUT THE WINDOW THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS YOU GUYS!!!!", etc.) of Cato the Elder's maxim: "Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters." Wikipedia is serious, and it is great, and yes there are standards. But you know what, it also just is a website and this is just some article about an old rap song on that website, okay? So you can't have a little fun? Baxter42 ( talk) 19:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
If this synopsis can exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Haired_Hare then so can the synopsis for Regulate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.232.55 ( talk) 05:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The current synopsis proposes that the lyric of "if your ass is a buster, 213 will regulate" be interpreted as: Nate concludes his delineation of the night by issuing a threat to "busters," suggesting that he and Warren will further "regulate" any potential incidents in the future (presumably by engaging their antagonists with small arms fire). I believe Nate intends to make a much broader point about the culture of his 213 area code being unkind to "busters" generally rather than implying specific, direct retribution from Nate and Warren. Further, perhaps Nate intends that life in the 213 has the effect of making one less of a buster over time, much as a farm boy will become less of a "hayseed" via life in a big city. Certainly the concept of regulate also may be interpreted more broadly to encompass not only violence but also teaching, mentorship, or merely continued exposure to the "game". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.28.242 ( talk) 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Why does the synposis say the woman was "impressed by Nate's singing ability"? There's no mention of singing. She doesn't say "my car's broke down and you *sing* real nice" -- she says "my car's broke down and you *seem* real nice." I think this line in the synposis shouldn't mention anything about singing ability -- it should just say that the woman surmised that Nate was a friendly person. Naseem19 ( talk) 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about paring down -- I just suggested correcting for accuracy. Since no one seems to object, I'm going to make the correction. But I won't touch anything else because this page is just altogether hilarious. Please let it be. Naseem19 ( talk) 01:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has gone over to the 'tards. It was only a matter of time before hipsters, IT dudes, and frat boys were going to take over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Everybody above me who thinks the lyrics section should be pared down are obviously racist and don't want to let black men speak for themselves and tell their story. It's not YOURstory, it's HIStory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devon Vice ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I made several changes to the synopsis to pare it down, make it more accurate, and make it more of an actual synopsis, as opposed to just flowery aggrandizement (read: whitewashing) of the lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.128.89 ( talk) 18:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it did that when "citation needed" was required for EVERY SINGLE THING. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.21.153.237 (
talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It is NOT self-defense for Nate to save Warren. There should not be a reference to the right of self-defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.128.89 ( talk) 18:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The prevention of death or severe bodily harm to one's self or another person is by definition self-defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsm710 ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a comedy site. If you think this "synopsis" is hilarious, than copy and paste it into your blog. But it is garbage as far as an encyclopedia is concerned and it doesn't belong here, no matter how funny you think it is. The fact that it's about a rap song doesn't mean that "anything goes" and that this is somehow appropriate. Nothing about Wikipedia is to be played for humor. The idea that said humor is somehow appropriate because it's "outreach" and will introduce a new demographic to wikipedia or because it's factual as well as funny...it's all BS. By this logic, the articles on Shakespeare's plays should be written in iambic pentameter, and the haiku articles should be 5-7-5...in order to "appeal to the target audience." An article about a rap song should be written to provide useful information to someone who knows nothing about the topic, not to make rap fans laugh. It's not even a synopsis (Merriam-Webster, "a condensed statement or outline"), as it is probably a good bit longer than the song itself. Cut and paste this mess into your blog and give yourselves mad props because you were too edgy for Wikipedia, but this has no place here. PurpleChez ( talk) 10:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have the following tag. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- The synopsis was informative AND amusing, the two categories are not mutually exclusive. It displayed the best aspects of wikipedia user contribution and its a real shame it has been deleted. Wikipedia is created by humans not robots, but alas, some admins wish to remove any traces of the former with the furious vitriol only a true pedant could know. 81.101.20.45 ( talk) 02:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC) James C.
- I would contest that the "synopsis" (I admit it was mis-represented) was in fact informative. Though there should be more effort put in to provide citations and background information that is assumed to be common knowledge, I do not believe it completely invalidates the content. I contest that this content was well in line with the WikiProject Songs. It may be hard for robots such as PurpleChez to understand, but songs are often not concrete in meaning. There are various ways for an audience to interpret a song and information such as that provided in the "synopsis" were helpful to understanding references made in the lyrics of the song. If Wikipedia is going to improve their coverage of the art that is music, you must allow for interpretations like these (and encourage them). It is important to initiate that dialog to create a balanced and accurate reference to this song. A song article with a generally accepted meaning is far more useful than a simple article with basic release information and a link to the artist. 64.91.63.197 ( talk) 17:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- "But until you provide reliable third party sources to support claims...." ' In the claims made by the synopsis, the source IS the song! I don't know what you expect users to contribute; every claim made in the synopsis derives from the song's lyrics.
"Nothing about Wikipedia is to be played for humor." - What a truly misinformed statement. Harold Bloom, Empson, Keats.. critics much greater than yourself and I routinely use humour as a means of elucidating meaning from primary sources. And this is the point a lot of people seem to be missing - 'Regulate' is a song, a work of ART which contains elements of humour and self-referential parody within its content. For an encyclopedia not to recognise this in its entry does the song disservice and stunts the reader. Form with regards to art does not have to be limited to straight exposition.
81.101.20.45 ( talk) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC) James C\
- Also, this is a plot heavy song. So congratulations on deleting an informative synopsis that showed the importance of narrative within the rap genre. Why not delete the synopsis to 'Inception' as well, that also isn't sourced and you seem to be on a mission. 81.101.20.45 ( talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC) James C
Where's the funny part of the synopsis? As far as I can see it's an exemplary piece of formal writing that serves as a completely accurate synopsis. The fact that people find it funny is irrelevant. There's a few here that need to pull their heads out of their own arses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.234.8 ( talk • contribs)
You are a God among men. May the WikiGods bless you. -E 06:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you cander0000. Reason has prevailed and a great wikipedia article has been restored!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 81.101.20.45 ( talk) 02:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
-E 10:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
And yet Cander has seen it worthwhile to restore it again. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
-E 08:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for removing any usefulness that can be derived from this site. I'd much rather know the UK chart position than what the song actually entailed. I hope you losers with no life DIAF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.203.219 ( talk) 17:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain why you insist on treating this page as your private little domain to show everyone how intelligent or how serious you are. But this was an informative article that used to medium of humor to convey how silly Rap can be at times, while simultaniously giving a surprisingly good overview of what the plot is actually about. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by being extremely childish and removing something that in essence is what Wikipedia is all about. Which (and I reitterate as you seem to have forgotten somewhere along the long road down to being a overused stereotype of an administrator) is to share correct information in an open and accepting environment. Everything said in this article (be it humorous or not) was factual and correct. Having racked my brain about this I can't come up with a reason for you to delete this article other than you having no sense of humor at all. Or feeling threatend by the user who puts this on here for being funny, clever and not a complete douche.
in conclusion....please restore the article and unclench your sphinxter...it's okay to laugh at something informative once in a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13.21.125.8 ( talk) 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe some of the dweebs who edit this site. Do you really have nothing better to do than go around saying, "DERP! Original research, need citations. DERP! This isn't The Onion. DERP DERP! I must protect the integrity of the article describing the song "Regulate" because I have nothing else to do. DERP!" I echo the first poster's message of "DIAF" and assume you're probably just jealous that Warren G and Nate Dogg actually get laid in the song, something that is so far out of the realm of possibility for people like you that it's not even funny. Don't you guys have a LARPing tournament to attend? BTW Cander0000 is the man for adding a humorous while also FACTUALLY ACCURATE AND USEFUL addition to this site. I'm going to re-add it. Hopefully none of you site vandals will delete it this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.202.86 ( talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Editors can't be everywhere at once, if they were doing this to another article, you'd simply have another editor there saying "well why aren't you tackling some other article first?" -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
-E 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka ( talk • contribs)
Reading through this page I see several very well written and eloquent reasons for restoring this article. And although this may just be my personal opinion, I have yet to see any good reasons against restoring this article asides from references to rules that are very open to interpretation. But at the end of the day this article embodies why wikipedia is doomed to eventually fail in it's current format. This is a direct qoutation from the wikipedia article on wikipedia:
Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs; the contributor is expected to build a user page, learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to an arcane dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references." Non-logged-in users are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia,[127] as "participants are accredited by members of the wiki community, who have a vested interest in preserving the quality of the work product, on the basis of their ongoing participation
This article is a prime example of it. Regardless of how many arguements we may come up with for restoring this article it will never be restored as a few editors have convinced themselves they are right in deleting this article's synopsis and it has gone beyond a discussion about this article into a thinly veiled unspoken discussion around the interpretation of wiki rules and the power of editors. The phrase second class citizens comes to mind as qouted above. I've very dissapointed in wikipedia and it's editors for A) Removing this article's synopsis and B) Letting their own personal feelings and desire to exercise their power and their unwillingness to admit wrong doing overshadow the main goal of wikipedia to share knowledge based on user submitted content. That being said I also realise it's useless to argue with these people as it will not matter how many examples or similar articles you qoute. It's gone from a discussion about subject matter into something personal. So we might as well give up and not bother. Which is sad. Very very sad. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
13.17.125.8 (
talk) 11:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- WOULD AN EDITOR PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You say "But until you provide reliable third party sources to support claims, the content will unceremoniously removed from the article". Now explain why you haven't deleted the synopsis to 'Inception'. That also has no citations. Apply your standards consistently across articles, no wonder people here are regarding your deletions as snobbish, discriminatory and unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.20.45 ( talk) 01:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for updating 'Inception' (however, I note that modification was only made after my commentary!) But surely the existence of 'crap' requires you, as a responsible editor, to delete it, as you did with this article?
I notice you kept Inception's synopsis and added your disclaimer yet removed this synopsis completely. Is it because you know your edits would look foolish if applied to the 'Inception' article? You are applying double standards. If you are going to remove one synopsis completely, do so with the other. Or are you scared of causing controversy with a far more popular article? 81.101.20.45 ( talk) 02:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's try again. I disagree with what you're saying. Regardless of the jokey tone and the amusement it provides I still believe this article has informative value and should be restored. You clearly do not want to. Fine that's your opinion. I disagree with this. Who can I take this to so we can get a final yes/no on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.30.83 ( talk) 11:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
You're not answering my question. If I disagree with you on this page who can I turn to? There's someone or some adress I can complain to. So let's try again. Who is the person I can escalate your behavior and this situation to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.30.83 ( talk) 08:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Since the section that was written up in Phoenix New Times has been edited out, it seems inappropriate to say that the article has been mentioned by a media organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.208.59 ( talk) 14:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it will stick, but I got rid of the "dude humor", mostly just to see how long it will last. I won't revert it back if someone re-edits it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me you gutted the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 ( talk) 14:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
citation needed for the above POV claim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.153.237 ( talk) 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Serious question here. The page says "The song also features... dialogue spoken from the 1988 film Young Guns.[citation needed]" How would you cite that? Does a web site or book need to say the same thing so it can be referenced here? If you listen to the song's intro and watch the part of Young Guns where Billy the Kid (Emilio Estevez) meets the rest of the crew, that's what you hear. BrianAshe ( talk) 01:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused in this article it says that Regulate... G Funk Era was on Death Row but on the Wikipedia entry for Warren G it says that "Death Row Records did not sign Warren G" even though "Warren G was a regular contributor to many Death Row albums." Someone please explain this for me. Lukereiser 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright lets see if I understand this hah, Warren G was never on Death Row but Regulate was featured on a complilation that Death Row put out? If thats true why does it say under the Warren G wiki entry under labels "Death Row 1994–1996"? If that true than when it says ""Death Row Records did not sign Warren G" it is incorrect? Lukereiser 01:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to take the liberty of erasing "Death Row 1994–1996" from the Warren G article to preserve continuity. Thanks for clearing this up. Lukereiser 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoever wrote the plot of the song, well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.129.58 ( talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Very funny synopsis, it will get deleted so here is a permalink : [1] . LiamUK ( talk) 12:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason why the synopsis should change or be deleted given that it is a clear and faithful summary of the lyrical content of the song. The song is ridiculous, so any description of it will either be condescending or itself ridiculous. -- Notquitethere ( talk) 22:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
So the complaint about the article is that it was too thorough? That's what made the description "garbage?" That is absurd, PurpleChez and Catfish. The article seems funny because we aren't used to seeing erudite analyses of rap lyrics, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. The article was very accurate and informative about the narrative in the song, to the extent that even someone with no knowledge of urban slang could read the article and understand it. I agree that being funny isn't enough to qualify as encyclopedic, but surely being funny isn't enough to qualify as unencyclopedic either. In your crumudgenous crusade against anything that might bring a smile to someone's face you have weakened the article by removing valuable and accurate information about the topic. It's an article about a song. What could be more "encyclopedic" than a faithful, line-by-line description of story it tells? If it is too verbose and needs editing, then edit it. But completely removing the synopsis? Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 ( talk) 14:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
the last line of the first paragraph says, "from the 1998 film Young Guns." but it should read "from the 1988 film Young Guns." —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
137.187.221.9 (
talk) 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it still possible to reinstate the synopsis of discussion? Warthog581 ( talk) 23:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed when this gets radio play now, they fade out before the third verse? My only guess is one of the last lines by Nate Dogg 'if you smoke like I smoke then you're high like every day', obviously referring to marijuana, and 'your ass is a buster'. The drug reference can be easily bleeped out, and even 'ass' seems to slip by, or that could be bleeped or replaced easily. Was this song always censored? or is this a new development? Cander0000 ( talk) 09:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
In the United States, FCC actions are initiated by viewer/listener complaints, so songs/television shows are usually censored to the tastes of the audience. While one station in a large city can get away with using more objectionable or profane words, another station, playing the same song, in a smaller market, would have to have a more censored version in order to avoid an FCC complaint as their audience may be less tolerant. -- Kagurazaka1977 ( talk) 13:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
young guns came out in 1988 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.31.130 ( talk) 19:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The follow tag exists for just this situation:
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
Time to bring back the synopsis and put that across the top. Everybody wins.
This is one of the coolest/funniest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It makes the whole project worth it. Thank you. Gnat ( talk) 03:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I changed the link from the phrase "East Side" from the wiki article on "East Los Angeles Region" to the correct "East Long Beach" Don't get it twisted busters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.37.149 ( talk) 04:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
How does this synopsis differ from other original content (e.g. the plot section of movie pages)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.141.191 ( talk) 21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I personally found the Synopsis useful - yes it was very very detailed which made it kind of funny but it also made me understand what was going on which I had previously not (having missed the line about the gun being pulled on Warren). How about instead of deleting the whole Synopsis over and over someone should state that a short synopsis would actually be acceptable so that this article can be genuinely useful. This way it does not describe the song itself at all, only the meta information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.44.48 ( talk) 01:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Here you go - one synopsis from a third party source that does not contain a circular reference to Wikipedia. Surely, that must satisfy any requirement for a third-party source to the "humourous" synopsis.-- 86.26.12.247 ( talk) 21:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not someone who normally edits wikipedia, and am probably doing this discussion thing incorrectly. When Nate Dogg died, I came here specifically looking for a detailed summary of Regulate. Today on facebook someone posted a mirror of the excellent summary that had been posted here, but was removed for, according to this discussion, the flimsiest of reasons. This page is useless without the summary, and useful with it. The purpose of any encyclopedia derives entirely from its utility. Thus, you are impelled to restore the summary. QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.127.92 ( talk) 21:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why we can't have it. It is accurate (you don't need "sources" other than the song itself, it is pretty clear), and it is funny. I've never seen a better proof than the comments from certain people about the synopsis ("WE MAY AS WELL THROW ALL THE STANDARDS OUT THE WINDOW THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS YOU GUYS!!!!", etc.) of Cato the Elder's maxim: "Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters." Wikipedia is serious, and it is great, and yes there are standards. But you know what, it also just is a website and this is just some article about an old rap song on that website, okay? So you can't have a little fun? Baxter42 ( talk) 19:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
If this synopsis can exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Haired_Hare then so can the synopsis for Regulate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.232.55 ( talk) 05:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The current synopsis proposes that the lyric of "if your ass is a buster, 213 will regulate" be interpreted as: Nate concludes his delineation of the night by issuing a threat to "busters," suggesting that he and Warren will further "regulate" any potential incidents in the future (presumably by engaging their antagonists with small arms fire). I believe Nate intends to make a much broader point about the culture of his 213 area code being unkind to "busters" generally rather than implying specific, direct retribution from Nate and Warren. Further, perhaps Nate intends that life in the 213 has the effect of making one less of a buster over time, much as a farm boy will become less of a "hayseed" via life in a big city. Certainly the concept of regulate also may be interpreted more broadly to encompass not only violence but also teaching, mentorship, or merely continued exposure to the "game". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.28.242 ( talk) 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Why does the synposis say the woman was "impressed by Nate's singing ability"? There's no mention of singing. She doesn't say "my car's broke down and you *sing* real nice" -- she says "my car's broke down and you *seem* real nice." I think this line in the synposis shouldn't mention anything about singing ability -- it should just say that the woman surmised that Nate was a friendly person. Naseem19 ( talk) 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about paring down -- I just suggested correcting for accuracy. Since no one seems to object, I'm going to make the correction. But I won't touch anything else because this page is just altogether hilarious. Please let it be. Naseem19 ( talk) 01:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has gone over to the 'tards. It was only a matter of time before hipsters, IT dudes, and frat boys were going to take over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Everybody above me who thinks the lyrics section should be pared down are obviously racist and don't want to let black men speak for themselves and tell their story. It's not YOURstory, it's HIStory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devon Vice ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I made several changes to the synopsis to pare it down, make it more accurate, and make it more of an actual synopsis, as opposed to just flowery aggrandizement (read: whitewashing) of the lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.128.89 ( talk) 18:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it did that when "citation needed" was required for EVERY SINGLE THING. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.21.153.237 (
talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It is NOT self-defense for Nate to save Warren. There should not be a reference to the right of self-defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.128.89 ( talk) 18:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The prevention of death or severe bodily harm to one's self or another person is by definition self-defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsm710 ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a comedy site. If you think this "synopsis" is hilarious, than copy and paste it into your blog. But it is garbage as far as an encyclopedia is concerned and it doesn't belong here, no matter how funny you think it is. The fact that it's about a rap song doesn't mean that "anything goes" and that this is somehow appropriate. Nothing about Wikipedia is to be played for humor. The idea that said humor is somehow appropriate because it's "outreach" and will introduce a new demographic to wikipedia or because it's factual as well as funny...it's all BS. By this logic, the articles on Shakespeare's plays should be written in iambic pentameter, and the haiku articles should be 5-7-5...in order to "appeal to the target audience." An article about a rap song should be written to provide useful information to someone who knows nothing about the topic, not to make rap fans laugh. It's not even a synopsis (Merriam-Webster, "a condensed statement or outline"), as it is probably a good bit longer than the song itself. Cut and paste this mess into your blog and give yourselves mad props because you were too edgy for Wikipedia, but this has no place here. PurpleChez ( talk) 10:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have the following tag. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
- The synopsis was informative AND amusing, the two categories are not mutually exclusive. It displayed the best aspects of wikipedia user contribution and its a real shame it has been deleted. Wikipedia is created by humans not robots, but alas, some admins wish to remove any traces of the former with the furious vitriol only a true pedant could know. 81.101.20.45 ( talk) 02:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC) James C.
- I would contest that the "synopsis" (I admit it was mis-represented) was in fact informative. Though there should be more effort put in to provide citations and background information that is assumed to be common knowledge, I do not believe it completely invalidates the content. I contest that this content was well in line with the WikiProject Songs. It may be hard for robots such as PurpleChez to understand, but songs are often not concrete in meaning. There are various ways for an audience to interpret a song and information such as that provided in the "synopsis" were helpful to understanding references made in the lyrics of the song. If Wikipedia is going to improve their coverage of the art that is music, you must allow for interpretations like these (and encourage them). It is important to initiate that dialog to create a balanced and accurate reference to this song. A song article with a generally accepted meaning is far more useful than a simple article with basic release information and a link to the artist. 64.91.63.197 ( talk) 17:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- "But until you provide reliable third party sources to support claims...." ' In the claims made by the synopsis, the source IS the song! I don't know what you expect users to contribute; every claim made in the synopsis derives from the song's lyrics.
"Nothing about Wikipedia is to be played for humor." - What a truly misinformed statement. Harold Bloom, Empson, Keats.. critics much greater than yourself and I routinely use humour as a means of elucidating meaning from primary sources. And this is the point a lot of people seem to be missing - 'Regulate' is a song, a work of ART which contains elements of humour and self-referential parody within its content. For an encyclopedia not to recognise this in its entry does the song disservice and stunts the reader. Form with regards to art does not have to be limited to straight exposition.
81.101.20.45 ( talk) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC) James C\
- Also, this is a plot heavy song. So congratulations on deleting an informative synopsis that showed the importance of narrative within the rap genre. Why not delete the synopsis to 'Inception' as well, that also isn't sourced and you seem to be on a mission. 81.101.20.45 ( talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC) James C
Where's the funny part of the synopsis? As far as I can see it's an exemplary piece of formal writing that serves as a completely accurate synopsis. The fact that people find it funny is irrelevant. There's a few here that need to pull their heads out of their own arses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.234.8 ( talk • contribs)
You are a God among men. May the WikiGods bless you. -E 06:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you cander0000. Reason has prevailed and a great wikipedia article has been restored!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 81.101.20.45 ( talk) 02:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
-E 10:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
And yet Cander has seen it worthwhile to restore it again. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
-E 08:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for removing any usefulness that can be derived from this site. I'd much rather know the UK chart position than what the song actually entailed. I hope you losers with no life DIAF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.203.219 ( talk) 17:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain why you insist on treating this page as your private little domain to show everyone how intelligent or how serious you are. But this was an informative article that used to medium of humor to convey how silly Rap can be at times, while simultaniously giving a surprisingly good overview of what the plot is actually about. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by being extremely childish and removing something that in essence is what Wikipedia is all about. Which (and I reitterate as you seem to have forgotten somewhere along the long road down to being a overused stereotype of an administrator) is to share correct information in an open and accepting environment. Everything said in this article (be it humorous or not) was factual and correct. Having racked my brain about this I can't come up with a reason for you to delete this article other than you having no sense of humor at all. Or feeling threatend by the user who puts this on here for being funny, clever and not a complete douche.
in conclusion....please restore the article and unclench your sphinxter...it's okay to laugh at something informative once in a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13.21.125.8 ( talk) 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe some of the dweebs who edit this site. Do you really have nothing better to do than go around saying, "DERP! Original research, need citations. DERP! This isn't The Onion. DERP DERP! I must protect the integrity of the article describing the song "Regulate" because I have nothing else to do. DERP!" I echo the first poster's message of "DIAF" and assume you're probably just jealous that Warren G and Nate Dogg actually get laid in the song, something that is so far out of the realm of possibility for people like you that it's not even funny. Don't you guys have a LARPing tournament to attend? BTW Cander0000 is the man for adding a humorous while also FACTUALLY ACCURATE AND USEFUL addition to this site. I'm going to re-add it. Hopefully none of you site vandals will delete it this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.202.86 ( talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Editors can't be everywhere at once, if they were doing this to another article, you'd simply have another editor there saying "well why aren't you tackling some other article first?" -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
-E 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka ( talk • contribs)
Reading through this page I see several very well written and eloquent reasons for restoring this article. And although this may just be my personal opinion, I have yet to see any good reasons against restoring this article asides from references to rules that are very open to interpretation. But at the end of the day this article embodies why wikipedia is doomed to eventually fail in it's current format. This is a direct qoutation from the wikipedia article on wikipedia:
Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs; the contributor is expected to build a user page, learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to an arcane dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references." Non-logged-in users are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia,[127] as "participants are accredited by members of the wiki community, who have a vested interest in preserving the quality of the work product, on the basis of their ongoing participation
This article is a prime example of it. Regardless of how many arguements we may come up with for restoring this article it will never be restored as a few editors have convinced themselves they are right in deleting this article's synopsis and it has gone beyond a discussion about this article into a thinly veiled unspoken discussion around the interpretation of wiki rules and the power of editors. The phrase second class citizens comes to mind as qouted above. I've very dissapointed in wikipedia and it's editors for A) Removing this article's synopsis and B) Letting their own personal feelings and desire to exercise their power and their unwillingness to admit wrong doing overshadow the main goal of wikipedia to share knowledge based on user submitted content. That being said I also realise it's useless to argue with these people as it will not matter how many examples or similar articles you qoute. It's gone from a discussion about subject matter into something personal. So we might as well give up and not bother. Which is sad. Very very sad. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
13.17.125.8 (
talk) 11:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- WOULD AN EDITOR PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You say "But until you provide reliable third party sources to support claims, the content will unceremoniously removed from the article". Now explain why you haven't deleted the synopsis to 'Inception'. That also has no citations. Apply your standards consistently across articles, no wonder people here are regarding your deletions as snobbish, discriminatory and unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.20.45 ( talk) 01:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for updating 'Inception' (however, I note that modification was only made after my commentary!) But surely the existence of 'crap' requires you, as a responsible editor, to delete it, as you did with this article?
I notice you kept Inception's synopsis and added your disclaimer yet removed this synopsis completely. Is it because you know your edits would look foolish if applied to the 'Inception' article? You are applying double standards. If you are going to remove one synopsis completely, do so with the other. Or are you scared of causing controversy with a far more popular article? 81.101.20.45 ( talk) 02:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's try again. I disagree with what you're saying. Regardless of the jokey tone and the amusement it provides I still believe this article has informative value and should be restored. You clearly do not want to. Fine that's your opinion. I disagree with this. Who can I take this to so we can get a final yes/no on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.30.83 ( talk) 11:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
You're not answering my question. If I disagree with you on this page who can I turn to? There's someone or some adress I can complain to. So let's try again. Who is the person I can escalate your behavior and this situation to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.30.83 ( talk) 08:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)