Songs B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alternative music B‑class High‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view other past collaborations in the archive.

Doesn't this statement go a little too far into the realm of fantasy? Is it NECESSARY in this article and at its very beginning? In 70 years of life, recalling my loves from kindergarten to the present, I think I know what a 'crush' is and, frankly, a 'sexual attraction' can always be - to varying degrees - the basis of even any 'true and romantic love' (as in the 1939 Love affair 'self-covered' film by Leo McCarey in 1957 'A story to remember' which could not be superficially described as 'sexual attraction'. In this case then, the cited example could also confirm how 'self-destructive' can be (it is in fact in both of these cases) the defeat, the hurt from the pain that reveals this to be an 'impossible love' (in my humble opinion, precisely the greatest love stories are the successful 'impossible love stories', those that need courage and immense effort to overcome obstacles of all kinds, see the 'Epistolae duorum amantium' between Peter Abelard and Héloïse). So I see no connection between an overrated 'sexual attraction' and 'self-destruction' in this song (his is, if anything, an 'already destroyed personality' and that is why he does not even attempt to 'conquer' her). In short, I suggest deleting this misleading statement. GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All that aside, I have deleted it for the simple reason that it is not covered or sourced in the article body. Popcornfud (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A section I had added was deleted and then "merged" (i.e. more or less erased) by another user (see their talk page and page history) despite the fact that it did follow guidelines (to which the very same user directed me) and seemed to bring something to the page and the reader's understanding of the song. I will leave this matter to other users' judgment. This would be the section:

The song's acoustic version plays in the opening scene of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.^[1] The choice of Creep associated with the theme of loneliness and the topic of animal cruelty has been noted as an important shift in the franchise^[2], exploring the darker undertones of trauma conveyed by the song.^[3](added afterwards) In a review subtitled ’ I don’t belong here.’, The Detroit News states: "An acoustic version of Radiohead's lovelorn Gen-X alienation anthem "Creep" plays over the opening credit sequence of "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3," and as far as telegraphing the mood of the third film in the "Guardians" franchise, it would be hard to find a more surface-level, obvious choice."^[4] According to a review dedicated to this very choice, the song’s themes may epitomize the character of Rocket and the narrative lines of the film.^[5]

And it can be expanded more.

________________-------------_____________________

It obviously would help showing the importance of Creep and also what the song is about and what is has come to mean. And such a section can of course be expanded. Also, the current phrasing (reduced to its simplest form in the Covers section) is quite inaccurate: the version of the song appearing in the film is not a cover but Radiohead’s acoustic version. Rocket/Cooper sings/hums along. Hopefully, this will be resolved for the benefit of the page. — MY, OH, MY! 18:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources presented so far, I don't see any need to cover this in more than a sentence or two — more than that seems WP:UNDUE. The discussion of how it's used, in terms of characters and so on, seems to be more about Guardians of the Galaxy than Creep. Anything especially important about that would be better covered in the GoG 3 article. That could obviously change if more sources say other, more relevant stuff. Popcornfud (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's perfect, because two sentences is exactly what you erased in your edit. So, yes, that means we agree they can be restored. Allow me to do it. Cheers. — MY, OH, MY! 20:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean it is not deserving of more than the sentence we already have, let alone a dedicated subsection. Popcornfud (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your last sentence is not clear. And it does not seem to mean what you had said before. At all. And you did revert my edits again??? I am flabbergasted. Please restore the version you just reverted as your reverting cannot be justified unless something else is at stake. You cannot change your mind every time and contradict yourself just for the pleasure of reverting a version that seems better than yours, whether you like it or not. On top of that, I repeat, your current phrasing is not accurate. It is not a cover version that is played in the film. A dedicated section with two sentences seems perfectly all right, as you had concurred above and as guidelines state in a perfectly clear way. It is bringing positive input and present relevant facts to the understanding of the song. If this is a practical joke, please stop and resrore my edit.. If not,, well, look at what you said since your first revert, assess it with an open mind, and, all the same. please restore the better version and the dedicated section. Thank you, — MY, OH, MY! 20:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a typo in my last comment — I've corrected it. Apologies for the confusion. However, I sense my typo is not really the root of your objection here. Popcornfud (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really create an entire section just for one sentence. I understand your point about it maybe not fitting in the Covers section, but the GQ source says the song is performed by Bradley Cooper in the film, so it seems like the best fit to me in terms of placement right now. Popcornfud (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, the version that is played in the film is Radiohead’s acoustic version and the character hums and sing along. If you think the GQ version (ambiguously or erroneously) states that it’s a cover, good news, the article version you last reverted did not use that source but 3 other links that are perfectly clear about that. Or just read note 5 above, for instance.

I should (but won’t, as a token of good will) just revert it myself now, as your current version is inaccurate. Just read the other sources...

And no, please, I don’t mean to "create a section just for 1 sentence!" You are the one reducing a section that can have 2, 3 4 sentences to just one sentence! And when I show you how it can be expanded, you ask it to be limited to 1-2! Etc.

So please, let’s stop this once and for all and allow me again to ask you to kindly restore the accurate and better version. I will restore it myself later if you don’t, because your arguments are self-contradictory and the current phrasing inaccurate. Thank you. — MY, OH, MY! 21:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, done it myself in a section that also mentions notable uses in other films. — MY, OH, MY! 06:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't think this is a good solution. The relevance of some of these film uses are iffy — there some of the problems described by WP:INPOPCULTURE. The description of Rocket Raccoon "humming and singing along" is not in the source provided. And the section is poorly written.

I think it's fine to mention Guardians of the Galaxy based on the coverage in sources, but there doesn't seem to be enough relevant content or coverage about it, or the song's use in other films, to expand it into a bigger section like you have done here.

You need to get consensus before making contested changes. You might want to go and ask for further opinions at WP:ALBUMS or another source. Popcornfud (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All attempts to address issues tackled above at length have been reverted by the same user despite my repeated efforts to comply with their requirements (their last revert deleting the whole section that included newly added sources they just had required, among other things...). The guideline on such sections states: "When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and their sources should establish their significance." (WP:SONGS may be the most appropriate project for this page, rather than WP:ALBUMS, but never mind). Requesting comment.— MY, OH, MY! 11:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the page contain a section In Films with sourced notable uses of "Creep" in films?— MY, OH, MY! 11:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, per WP:POPCULTURE. There isn't enough enough notable coverage in reliable secondary sources to create a dedicated section for this. Popcornfud (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Striking this after better sources provided below. Popcornfud (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See section above please and material erased, for a better assessment/understanding of this assertion. — MY, OH, MY! 11:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - if it's covered in reliable sources, and verifiable, a section is warranted. I prefer guidelines and policies over essays. And actually, this just seems to be a case by case for song articles, some have this type of section -- Go All the Way, Fox on the Run, Lake Shore Drive, The Chain, Father and Son -- while others don't. I found these too with a simple internet search, Book of Life, Book of Life, and also used in trailers, Reinfield, The Social Network, The Social Network. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If these sources provide enough good info on other film usage, then I don't oppose a section. Stuff we had before, like "The song appears in X film" or "The song appears in Y film in Z scene" don't cut it. Popcornfud (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that last source, about the use of "Creep" in the Social Network trailer and how that influenced later film trailers, is great material and the kind of thing I am looking for. Popcornfud (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an "In film" section using the coverage provided above. Popcornfud (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but only if there is something of substance to their usage. Saying that a song appeared in another piece of media is cruft. Guardians of the Galaxy's mention would fail that criteria; The Social Network and The Book of Life are not clear cut, as they'd better fit on the movies' respective articles imo. SWinxy (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, this what I'm now leanings towards again. Popcornfud (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes but only if it's covered by a reliable source, Generally if a song is in a film but no reliable sources exist then no it shouldn't (because it could be a made up claim). –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]