Talk:Gangnam Style/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments

Untitled 1

This needs to be fixed... he says "Oppa'n'Bold text Gangnam style" not oppa....

"Gangnam style" is correct. ".Ovan ga@namstyle"(Korean: 오빤 강남스타일) is just meaning of "Older brother(오빠) is(ㄴ) Gangnam(강남) Style(스타일).", which can translate to "I have Gangnam style." - Ellif (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled 2

This page should be deleted or merge to PSY page. I believe the reason is because it is just a song. 67.4.247.104 (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles on songs are perfectly fine. We have plenty of songs that are featured articles as well. Pretty much any song that charts nationally is eligible to have its own article. Silverseren^C 12:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled 3

The page should be semi-protected again for a longer period of time. The chart position of the video has risen to #2, giving it major coverage, and several counts of vandalism have happened from different IP addresses. 222.165.57.95 (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes can we have this protected please? I saw the nationality of Psy changed from Japanese to South Korean to North Korean to Mexican in the past minute. Podex (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that we should have this page semi-protected. And I do admit that i have changed his nationality to south korean, because he is. And I will continue to do so, if other people continue to change it to things that aren't true. --Pollyyander (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

YG credited with "viral success"

The following was inserted by Castncoot:

The YG Entertainment office in New York City has been credited with the viral success of the Gangnam Style video.

This doesn't make any sense. The sentence claims that YG is somehow responsible for the video going viral. But the reason it went viral is some notable musicians blogged or tweeted about it. Unless they were paid or influenced somehow directly by YG, YG cannot be behind the viral success of the video. In fact, the source given, [1], seems to state YG is puzzled the video went viral. --C S (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's also unclear why the insertion even mentions the YG office in New York. Is that in the source? I don't see it. --C S (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Used Google Translate on the page, doesn't seem to have any references to YG or its New York office (if there is one) 222.165.57.59 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Castncoot changed the citation to a correct one, good on him. However, the source states this:

The YG Entertainment office in New York should also be given credit for spreading Psy's viral movement with "Gangnam Style." The music critic previously mentioned above stated, "If the YG Entertainment staff in New York didn't have the experience dealing with American new media, Psy's music video may not have become famous as it is now. A lot of people are very curious as to what kind of moves Psy will make in the future with his music."

It only mentions that YG Entertainment in New York should be given credit, but not actually being given credit at all. Also, the critic's name wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Information doesn't seem to be accurate over there too. Under WP:RSOPINION and WP:USEBYOTHERS, I'm deleting that specific part off. 222.165.58.198 (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception and Criticism

Good job on the article so far! But the two sections should be mixed - there is no particular reason to have 'criticism'-section, and generally, criticism should always (unless it has received MASSIVE criticism) be merged into the rest of the article text. I'm a pretty bad editor with broken English, so I won't try to edit it myself :) 87.52.65.5 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The criticism section should be deleted or replaced with properly sourced material. The referenced source only contains the following note on criticism: "not everyone is impressed - his detractors have labelled his music vulgar.". There is no mention of the word "eccentric" and "wacky" is actually used in a complimentary fashion. WodenAlfodr (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Movies and other pop culture items have a critics' review section of the work of art (or art) so I think it is approprate to have some discussion on that issue. The cites are to some important newspapers, such as the Wall Street Journal. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed

A lot of vandalism has been happening lately from IP addresses - I suggest that semi-protection is applied to the page. 222.165.57.159 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Italics for quotations?

Is there any reason that italics are being used instead of or in addition to quotation marks for quotations? If not, I'm removing the italics. Mjworthey (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason is that there are so many quotations it will be difficult to read if there are too many quotation marks. "do you think its easier" to "read this" sentence with "so many quotation marks", or would it be better to standardize everything with italics?

i think its better to read with italics because there are so many quotations, but if you have lots of free time and you think its wrong to use italics for quotations then go ahead and change it. EDIT : its only my second time editing on wikipedia so if you really think yours is better then do itA1candidate (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Quoting is a well-established convention in English. It's not something that is just for Wikipedia. Please put any new quotations in quotes, not italics. Incidentally, if you tend to write sentences like your example, that's bad writing to begin with (not that I haven't done that myself on occasion). If quoting (rather than italicizing) makes that bad writing more obvious, I consider that a plus. --C S (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You've missunderstood me, I never said quotations shouldnt be allowed, all I said was that I use italics more often than quotations, sometimes even both because it makes things easier to read. if you dont like something please change it :) A1candidate (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, just an FYI: italics should not be used for quotations. Please see WP:MOSQUOTE. SKS (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to paraphrase the quotations where possible because the text is becoming incomprehensible. Too many quotations and redundant ones too. The article structure is hectic and contains unnecessary sections, like "Factors that have led to Gangnam Style's widespread popularity" - this should be done in a more concise, encyclopedic form and not through a way of quoting every possible news article you can find on the internet. The article right now is nothing more than a mishmash of news clippings... I am currently working on a featured article for huwiki, when I ready i might clean up this one too but I don't have the capacity now to work on two articles at the same time.小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 14:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on too much additional criticism here, since A1candidate has been doing a tremendous amount of work. Nonetheless, I have to agree with Teemeah. There is not enough discretion in what is being chosen to be added. It seems anything even remotely related is being thrown in the article and that material is not being added in a well-written way, but mashed together with too many quotations. Just to point out a representative sample, in the lead section (before the table of contents), we see:

According to the German national daily newspaper Die Welt, "Gangnam Style" is spreading like a "Lauffeuer" (wildfire),[1] and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation writes that millions around the globe have become "obsessed".[2]

This is silly. It is unnecessarily detailed. If the intent is just to say Gangnam style is spreading rapidly with millions becoming big fans... well, there are far better ways to say so. In fact, the other facts mentioned (such as the rapidity of Youtube views) are sufficient to back up such a statement. --C S (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

However, a recent edit by A1candidate did remove so much information that I believe some relevant information also got lost. It felt too hasty and was just too extreme of an edit. Perhaps we should focus on condensing, not the deletion of many whole sections at once. EryZ (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone (I didn't check) has put in some nice, gray-colored quote boxes. That's a good idea. Probably the entire article could use a rewrite at some point, after Gangnam fever has died down. . --C S (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The quotation boxes have been added to make things neater, articles usually dont deserve that much quotations, this articles deserves to keep its quotations because of its overwehlming popularity. Without quotations, its hard for the reader to fully understand the influence of Gangnam StyleA1candidate (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

pronunciation

Under "Miscellaneous Facts" it says "The proper English pronunciation of "Gangnam Style" is 'Kungnum Style.'" This is not the case. If someone wants to delve into the intricacies of Korean pronunciation, okay, but today's accepted transliteration is "Gangnam" because, I think most would agree, it's more accurate. Maybe just delete that "fact"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.149.98 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont speak Korean, and I took this information from an ABC News reporter who asked a fellow Asian American reporter how to pronunce it, and she says Gangnam is pronounced with a "K" at the beginning? Maybe you can explain why Gangnam is pronunced with a "K" but still gets transliterated as "Gangnam"? (this is an honest question from someone who doesnt speak Korean) A1candidate (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not exactly pronounced with a K. The Korean ㄱ is actually pronounced somewhere between an English G and K. It's not voiced like a G, but also not aspirated as we might pronounce a K. So the revised system uses a G for that letter and saves K for the aspirated ㅋ. You could tell an American to pronounce it like the "Kong" in "Hong Kong" but he would tend to inappropriately aspirate the sound. The bigger problem, I think, is with the vowels. It's a big stretch to use a U to represent ㅏ, which sounds like the vowel in "spa." If I were showing someone with no experience in Korean how to pronounce the word, I'd tell them to go with "gong nom" (where "nom" is the first syllable of "nominate").

I understand what you're saying, so its neither pronounced like an American "G" or "K" . I have deleteted that reference.A1candidate (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

POV

After reading this article in full, I can't help thinking that it promotes the song; certain choices of words make me feel the article is slightly toned to making the song sound fantastic (as in the wording of the article, not the positive quotes). Any other thoughts? --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

for example? im was just merely quoting newspapers and famous people word by wordA1candidate (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment on my talk page. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

and I've also replied to thatA1candidate (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

if nobody has anything to say about this Im going to remove this tag soonA1candidate (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Too many quote boxes

There seems to be too many quote boxes in this article. A more selective approach would benefit it: perhaps the three most important ones, included only under 'impact'. Shilton (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

the quote boxes are there to make things a little neater, a few quotes come from the celebrities, a few from broadcasting networks, and a few from newspapers. its a good idea to limit quotes for each subsection, I only select quotes from National daily newspapers with top circulation, national (or international) broadcasting networks, and celebrities whom everyone knows about. i think there may be a few quotes that can be deleted, let me know which ones you feel too strongly against.A1candidate (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To me the question is what is the use of bringing, for example, the actual quote from Britney Spears, rather than simply stating her endorsement in some sort of list? Is it really important to read her tweets verbatim? Quote boxes are relevant when the actual words have actual significance; this cannot be said for any phrase ending in "haha". Regardless of my own uneasiness about quoting mere celebrities, I suggest, for the sake of aesthetics alone, leaving only one celebrity quote (whichever is your favourite), one quote from a newspaper, and perhaps also the one about the flash mob. Shilton (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

removed all quote boxes from celebrities, replaced with table, newspaper+broadcasting network quotes relocated and limited to 1 each section --A1candidate (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Lede needs expansion

The lede should be expanded to be a proper summary of the entire article (as ledes are supposed to do, per WP:LEDE). Considering the size of the article, a three paragraph lede with the paragraphs being decently large should be able to properly summarize all the important parts of the article. This seems to be one of the few things that's left to do to improve this article, beyond minor fixes here and there. Silverseren^C 21:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

iTunes US

The song is #1 on iTunes US, I think it should be mentioned in the article as this is an amazing achievement. Not only is GS the first Korean song to top the chart but it's the first foreign language song to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.96.157 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are some refs:

• http://rki.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_Cu_detail.htm?No=93227&id=Cu - also mentions iTunes Worldwide chart and iTunes Worldwide Music Video chart
• http://www.npr.org/2012/09/15/161147846/k-pops-new-king
• http://www.prefixmag.com/news/psys-gangnam-style-now-1-on-us-itunes-singles-char/69155/

AngusWOOF (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Song as parody

Some sources (such as this one) note that this song/video doesn't actually celebrate the Gangnam lifestyle but actually is meant to parody and criticize it. I'm no expert on Korean culture, but should this point of view be introduced into the "background" section of this article? Oren0 (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Swag"

"an affluent and trendy area of Seoul,[6] where people are trendy, hip and exude a certain "swag"" - this doesn't seem right as a factual statement, it may need to be rephrased. I don't think it is correct encyclopaedic style to describe people as "exuding a certain swag", seeing as it is more a matter of opinion. Besides, it says trendy twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.150.53 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Article about the swag: http://opencitymag.com/beyond-the-horse-dance-viral-vid-gangnam-style-critiques-koreas-extreme-inequality/ AngusWOOF (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but it is still a generalisation. It would be better on Wikipedia to say that the people in the district "are stereotyped as hip and trendy", or something along those lines, rather than actually saying that it is a fact that they are "hip". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.150.53 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody actually read this stuff?

"such debt has been encourages by the government to help drive" This is quote from the current article. Anyone think there's something amiss with the word encourages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.13.174 (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone already fixed this. Thanks for finding it. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is in response to the question in the title of this section. A consequence of the international attention to Gangnam Style is that there will be many people editing, who do not have native English fluency or are not familiar with Wikipedia editing conventions. However, as happens on Wikipedia, people will gradually improve it. A lot of the attention on this article has focused on adding material; as Gangnam fever dies down, the contents of the article will stabilize and people who are into polishing and making stylistic edits will take over. At this stage, I myself haven't seen a need to do this, since someone else typically comes along and randomly inserts a phrase into the middle of a sentence without bothering to read the surrounding text. I expect there are others that feel this way and are refraining from editing heavily. --C S (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Gangnam Style

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gangnam Style's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "billboard":

• From Katy Perry: "Music's Top 40 Money Makers 2012". Billboard. Retrieved March 9, 2012.
• From Wide Awake (Katy Perry song): http://www.billboard.com/#/news/alan-jackson-scores-top-debut-on-billboard-1007306752.story
• From Wonder Girls: Silvio Pietroluongo (2009-10-22). "Jay Sean Recaptures Hot 100's Top Slot". Billboard. Retrieved 2009-10-22. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• From Lady Gaga: "Music's Top 40 Money Makers 2012". Billboard. Retrieved March 9, 2012.
• From Taylor Swift: Prometheus Global Media. Teardrops on My Guitar – Taylor Swift [Retrieved 2010-12-15].
• From Korea K-Pop Hot 100: Billboard (2010-08-26). "Billboard K-Pop Hot 100 Launches; Sistar Is No. 1 on New Korea Chart". Retrieved 2011-08-26.
• From Bubble Pop!: "Korea K-Pop Hot 100 Music Chart". Billboard. 2011-08-25. Retrieved 2011-08-25. {{cite web}}: Text "Billboard.com" ignored (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Language explanation

Is this supposed to be an article about a Korean song or the Korean language? 186.178.110.47 (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This paragraph/sentence...

"In Korean colloquialism, "오빤 강남 스타일 (Oppan Gangnam style)" may be translated as "I am (loving) the Gangnam style." or literally translated as "I am Gangnam style." or "A Gangnam-styled girl is my style." because the Korean word 오빠 (oppa), which is a noun meaning "a female's elder brother" but can be also used as a first-, second- or third-person masculine pronoun to designate a male who is elder or older than a female, is used as a first-person pronoun in this phrase and 오빤 (oppan) is an abbreviation of 오빠는 (oppaneun) which is translated as "I am" when 오빠 (oppa) is used as a first-person pronoun."

...is virtually incomprehensible. I'd have a got at cleaning it up myself but I'd probably interpret the explanation wrong since I don't know Korean. MuJoCh (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

오빠는 강남 스타일 (오빤 강남 스타일) translates well into "Big brother's Gangnam Style" or in the sense that 오빠 is used as first-person "My Gangnam Style". "I am Gangnam Style" doesn't really make a lot of sense imo ㅜㅜ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.67.171 (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the literal translation, which does somehow fit into the comic nature of the music video. Anyway, I hopefully clarified the situation in the latest version. --C S (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I speak Korean. In my sense, "Oppan Ganngam style" means "I like a girl in Gangnam style". --Cheol (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone magazine posted a nice breakdown of the video sequences with commentary by Psy; it might be good for the music video overview section: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/breaking-down-psys-gangnam-style-20120914 AngusWOOF (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Non-exhaustive list"?...Really?

Considering the article calls out T-Pain I can understand including a link to the original tweet. But do we really need a list of arbitray list of Tweets from random celebrities (A-List or otherwise) who have mentioned. Heck, not even mentioning the video specifically...just using the words "Gangnam Style". -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

i only included those in the music and entertainment industry, there are more. and 90% of them also shared the video, not just mentioning it. -A1candidate (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we also need to include any media outlets that may have shown clips or mentioned this? I repeat the previous statement that the list is arbitray, and reads like somebody who searched "Gangnam Style" on Twitter and threw in the first handful of celebs they recognized. Do we need to start providing a list of celeb tweets for every meme that makes its way through the internet? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 20:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

the point of celebrity tweets is to demonstrate the video's social influence, and allow the reader to understand why it got popular -A1candidate (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

← I have removed the list and inserted the proper references regarding T-Pain into the main paragraph text. Pleaes do not re-add without first discussing it further. A list of random celebrities mentioning the video does not automatically become encyclopedic, especially when two of those celebrities (T-Pain and Britney Spears) are already documented in the article proper (T-Pain as one of the people who first brought the video to public attention, and Spears for her appearance with the artist on the Ellen Show). Without some sort of boundary, where do we draw the line? As the list itself is just one person's take on who is "notable" enough to be included. Hence why it's an arbitrary list. If you wish to include further artists, then integrate their importance to the subject with third party results, instead of simply linking to the tweets mentioning the song. The fact that you admit that "there are more" is further evidence that the list was culled with no specific boundaries set. Inclusion (or lack there of) is meaningless when viewed by anybody other than the person who created it. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 20:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Robbie Williams -> First to mention it

T-Pain -> First to tweet about it

Katy Perry -> Most number of retweets (12,000)

Britney Spears -> Ellen Degeners Show

LMFAO -> His music is considered by many to be similar to Psy's

Tom Cruise -> First actor to mention it

Scooter Braun -> Psy's manager -A1candidate (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

adding this back to the article if nobody has any objections -A1candidate (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

added back a short list since nobody has voiced any objections. Please write on the talk page before deleting. -A1candidate (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I included William Gibson's comment on the song since it seemed fairly relevant. I omitted the full quote since it's a lot longer than much of the tweeted entries, but here it is: "You know that “Gangnam Style” video from Korea? That’s kind of in the ballpark, you know? That’s something from a subculture we would have no way of knowing anything about, and suddenly it’s on YouTube and it’s got millions and millions of hits, and people all over the world are saying, “Wow, will you check this out?” That’s something. That’s something like that. But it doesn’t necessarily play out in the same way…. Our expectations and what it could become are different." (Source: WIRED)--DrWho42 (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Gangnam Style parodies and reaction videos

It looks like this is a new article now. Do we really need a chart that ranks the popularity of the videos on the main page? That's too much to maintain. AngusWOOF (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Popularity" and ranking based on views is unneccesary and creates a need to constantly update the list. If there is a need for this list, then it's better as a chronilogical list of videos and why they're notable. As with the above discussion regarding random celebrities tweeting about the video, there needs to be a reason why the video is included (parody's recieving noteable third party coverage or inclusion in a noteable TV series, film, or other form of media would be valid reasons for inclusion) -- TRTX ^{T / C} 20:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that 2-3 notable videos get mentioned by some big newspaper everyday, this section will fill up half the page before October. Suggestions? -A1candidate (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AngusWOOF and TRTX. I really do not think we need to be maintaining lists of the song's trending popularity or its continued, "non-exhaustive" mentions and tweets by other celebrities and news sources. It is highly unnecessary for a Wikipedia article. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Foreign news sources are included to give the article views from a global perspective, selected tweets by celebrities are included due to its significance to the singer's career (see above) -A1candidate (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Social influence of Gangnam Style

Social influence of Gangnam Style was recently marked for proposed deletion. You can join the discussion here.--DrWho42 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

StarCraft II

StarCraft II has no enormous fanbase in South Korea, and their players are hardly celebrities in Gangnam-go. At the very least it's not in the source, since the source is nothing but a youtube video of Stephano (French player) dancing after his victory in European qualifiers in Sweden. Hence I'm removing the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.119.185.29 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your first statement since it is an unofficial "national sport" (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-27/tech/south.korea.starcraft_1_starcraft-ii-gaming-market-internet-cafes?_s=PM:TECH) but you can apply significant secondary media coverage and see if the source qualifies (a Youtube fan video by itself wouldn't). I've only found rtsguru so far (http://www.rtsguru.com/game/1/article/4060/StarCraft-II-World-Championship-Series-A-Truly-Global-eSports-Event..html) AngusWOOF (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Outside the anglosphere"

Without commenting on the use of the word "anglosphere", surely "Gangnam Style" is notable for being popular outside Korea (rather than outside English-speaking countries). 122.59.249.222 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit weird, especially when you consider that most of Asia is outside the Anglosphere, but the section under discussion seems focused on not using Asian sources. (Now I noticed the section has been renamed "Outside of North America", which seems even more bizarre). --C S (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

help add some Asian sources, references outside North America are included to give the article a global perspective -A1candidate (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The subheading "Outside of North America" made no sense at all, and wasn't that necessary since the section isn't overlong. I removed the subheading entirely. --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

More needs to be said about Psy's use of satire in the video. In addition to the music and fun, there is a deeper narrative against the superficial nature of Gangnam show offs. If you've ever been to Garosuguil, you know what I'm talking about. Please do not delete this section, it is a key point to make.CrimsonSwift (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

North Korea Parody

Shouldn't we have a link to the video? I've been looking all around for it anybody have any idea of the link!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.108 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

According to CNN, the link is supposed to be : http://www.uriminzokkiri.com/itv/php_tmp/flvplayer.php?no=11566

(http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/asia/north-korea-gangnam-video/index.html)

but some how i keep getting 504 Gateway Time-out whenever i click it

am i the only one who cant view the video??? -A1candidate (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's completely down at the RTMP level. —Cupco 04:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

OK, this article is a mess. There are quotes everywhere, as are tables. The references aren't properly formatted. The tables need to be turned into prose. And some more encyclopediac info should be added. I'll be starting on these --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone take another shot at organizing the second paragraph? Why are flash mobs pushed to the top, when people haven't even started dancing to it for their weddings and social events? It should mention the celebrity tweets and parodies (as early as July), then flash mobs (August), media appearances (September), and finally sports (mid-late September). Also the flash mobs and sports stuff need to be offloaded or merged with the popular culture page, as the two lists are diverging. AngusWOOF (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

ABC (good morning america) quote

As mentioned in the edit summary, the quote is an exaggeration. As editors, we don't make judgements on popularity, as that would be WP:SYN on the part of us editors.Curb Chain (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to see what others think. I feel the quote should be restored, as does user User:A1candidate. The rationale is that we as editors are not pushing the actual viewpoint, we are simply stating that a major news organization has made such a comment, and that is indeed a cited fact. We are therein strictly leaving it up to the reader whether to make the determination that this demonstrates the power and impact of this phenomenon. Castncoot (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Being an exaggeration, by itself, does not automatically qualify for something to be excluded from Wikipedia, does it? I swear I've seen countless of claims and opinions, some bordering on the impossible, being quoted by countless Wikipedia editors. Just take a look at articles like Out-of-body experience, Energy medicine, 2012 phenomenon, etc. A quote by an established broadcasting coporation like ABC News seems more than harmless to me, in this respect.

Although Im new to Wikipedia, I have just read through the entire WP:SYN and it seems to me that original synthesis only applies when something new is added, which is not mentioned specifically by any source. And think about it, how is it possible for a quote to be original synthesis when it is, by defintion, a quote?

Even if this quote is slightly exagerrated, the fact is that other established newspapers like the Financial Times have said almost the same thing. I think removing the quote would lead to the reader not fully understanding what the mainstream media thinks about "Gangnam Style" -A1candidate (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Restoring the quote soon if nobody has any strong objections -A1candidate (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a consensus for restoration here, will restore the quote. Castncoot (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

At which point in the video does it exactly say those words you quoted (in the quote box)? Secondly, you are using pushing WP:POV to give undue weight to this quote because

1. it is a major newspaper, which is using WP:SYN by editors to determine it is a major newspaper
2. you are pulling this quote out of a number of different sentences spoken in the video
3. you are giving undue weight to this quote because you are deliberately putting it in its own box, out of context, to HIGHLIGHT this quote.Curb Chain (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

1. ABC News is a broadcasting network, not a newspaper.
2. 3:15 - 3:20, male reporter on the left
3. Only applies if a view held by a small minority. In this case, ABC News isn't by far the only one holding this view. (See above)

-A1candidate (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Restore. It's a quotation, not a synthesis. WP:SYN doesn't apply here. --Moscowconnection (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be RfC. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to close this case out at this time, in my humble opinion - there appears to be a good consensus for maintaining the quote. Castncoot (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer TransporterMan brings up a good point - he feels that the placement of the quote would be valid with the exception that the reporter is stating "intrawebs" rather than "internet", if you listen carefully. TransporterMan is correct about that. This volunteer then expresses the opinion that the use of the word intrawebs could be potentially distracting - on this point I disagree, because people are familiar with this term (which is actually Wiki-linkable), and the quote still conveys the same theme; therefore, respectfully, I will correct the quote itself. Castncoot (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To me, it seems unfair to remove a quote just because it was quoted as "Internet" instead of "Intraweb", the point of the quote is that the song is extremely popular in many places around the world, (an opinion that is supported by countless respectable newspapers/broadcasting networks), and the fine differences between "Internet" and "Intrawebs" appear somewhat trivial to me. Of course, it should still be correctly quoted as "Intrawebs" -A1candidate (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This may well need to be kicked back to the talk page for further discussion. I failed to notice that there doesn't appear to be extensive discussion. Since another volunteer has commented at the DR/N it will not be closed immediatly however, failure to use the DR/N filing in good faith to work out this dispute and continued discussion here may result in the filing being closed for a lack of participation. If this is close to being resolved please continue here or the DR/N to collaborate. The most important issue is the content dispute and resolving it. If this can be done here we do not need the filing. If the filing is to remain open please discuss this further with the volunteer at[2]. Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of the graphic in the timeline

While it isnt the best chart out there, the purpose is to show how the video got viral when it was originally not known in the United States. The graphic is not there to point out the song's every success, but rather, to document the critical moments that happened a month after it was uploaded (This is my explanation to those who feel that the graphic is outdated and should therefore be removed) -A1candidate (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Protection request

The title says it all!--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

no vandalism.Greg Heffley 20:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

look again -A1candidate (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it now protected?--88.111.121.131 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There was no vandalism when I made this comment. However, there is no recent vandalism to use to make this page protected.Greg Heffley 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's too late, it's protected now!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Archive

I don't know how to do this, so can somebody archive the references in the charts performance table for future verifiability? Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Here: http://www.webcitation.org/,. Click Archive, then enter a URL and an email, you'll be given an archive link immediately. --Moscowconnection (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Chart positions

Gangnam Style video just broke into the "YouTube All Time Most Watched Top 10" list beating out Eminem's "Don't Be Afraid" for tenth spot as of October 4, 2012 REF: http://seoulspace.co.kr/2012/10/04/top10youtube-alltime/ http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_10_youtube_videos_of_all_time.php I actually think this would be worthy of mention in the default description section. Chart is great, but its a youtube video and now its in the top 10 of all time. That's a big deal, imho. Richardmin (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Richard Min /seoul space blogRichardmin (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam Style entered the Norwegian VG-lista today at #19 - can someone add this? Source: http://lista.vg.no/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.162.65.46 (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Proof --Funky Buraz (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In the opening stanza, it's mentioned that the song has made #1 in Australia citing the iTunes Australia chart. This is not our official chart, ARIA singles chart is and as of 26/09/2012 it sits at #2. I'm expecting it to go to #1 here next week but the amount of sources that incorrectly cite the iTunes chart (which only counts for ~70% of the AU market) are numerous and inaccurate I think, please amend. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.149.115 (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrectly listed as #1 in the UK singles chart. It is currently #3. Will probably be #1 on Sunday as its currently #1 on the mid week update see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles & http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/update/singles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.218.155.251 (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting for second opinion

Recently, Gangnam Style was mentioned by a reporter during a U.S. State Department briefing, and I've uploaded a video clip of it to commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gangnam_Style_US_State_Department.ogv

Does anyone think it would be appropriate to include this in "Gangnam Style"'s article? (An honest question from someone who doesnt' have much experience as an WP editor) -A1candidate (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You already added it. Teammm ^TM 18:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Im asking about the video clip, not the text. Does anyone have objections to the text being placed at the front of the article? -A1candidate (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Add the video as a reference. It's unneeded in the article. And that doesn't belong in the lead of the article. Teammm ^TM 18:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether a video of this should be added or not is debatable, but the text should, in any case be included in the lead-in because this could be an excellent point to catch the reader's attention, in my humble opinion -A1candidate (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Putting it in the lead gives undue weight to an event that is really insignificant. The lead already summarizes the attention the song has garnered around the world and in the media. It should go into the article alone. Teammm ^TM 20:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I feel that a public comment by a US government official about a particular song is by no means insignificant, I agree that the lead-in is already a good summary and does not require further expansion, the text should go into the article.

Back to my original question now, does the video deserve to be included? (Its difficult to just put it as a reference, I think the context should be explained too). Would like to know what other editors think. Maybe just include the text alone and take out the video? -A1candidate (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it the video of the remark that is notable or the remark itself? And is it important in the context of WP:NOTNEWS? AngusWOOF (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

In the context of WP:NOTNEWS, the video wont be notable, its the remark itself that is notable because its mentioned by other news sources, and it is also very unusual (and therefore notable), for a pop song to be mentioned during a U.S. State Department press conference. So I included the text but left out the video -A1candidate (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

More work to do

OK, here are the areas that need to improve before this article can be considered complete:

• the Reception section should include more comments from music critics.
• the Background should be expanded to include inspirations from which Psy and his team drew prior to working on the song. It should be expanded to include how the song was released -- when, where, and with which medium (CD, digital download, etc)
• the Music video section should include how it was filmed, how long the filming took, if there were any highlights during the filming.
• a music and lyrical interpretation section should also be added if references permit.
• a table of certifications (gold, platinum, etc) should be added.

Information can be found in foreign-language Gangnam Style articles.

So far, everyone has done an great job covering the impact and popular culture aspect of the song --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone and MTV interview articles said that filming took 48 hours straight, and who were actors and who were just bystanders who got into the action (the tour bus). Those are some good places to start for researching how they chose the actions for the scenes. Also the "Making of" video has some good outtakes. And the Lady Gaga mention reference can be pushed out the footnotes. AngusWOOF (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. We don't know what date the filming took place, but that's alright. FWIW I'm using other music articles (Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) and Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)) as yardsticks for the development of this article. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this American wikipedia? Sure looks like it...

Comes as no surprise that most of the references in this wiki is based in the U.S. Wikipedia should just rename itself Americapedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.55.113 (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Come back when you've got a constructive comment to make. Or, try finding non-American sources that contain information that aren't already covered in these American sources. Otherwise, I've got a video you can watch. Take care --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the previous poster but I've got a constructive suggestion, the "3rd most viewed video on Youtube" link from the entry paragraph is a link that works on Global (and probably US) youtube, the localized top videos differ.

So my suggestion is that the correct reference there should be the following link: http://www.youtube.com/charts/videos_views?gl=US&t=a

currently it opens only as http://www.youtube.com/charts/videos_views?t=a for me, which seemed insufficient to get the right statistics from any point of the Globe.

Billboard Charts

Using Wikipedia:Record charts#Billboard charts, it appears that all four of the current Billboard charts used are correctly included. The page is a guideline. Ryan Vesey 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The song has climbed up most of the charts steadily and there is little to indicate that it would fail to do so in the near future. If the song doesn't reach top 10 within a few weeks, it might make sense to remove it, but until then, I think the charts should be given a chance to stay, in my humble opinion. -A1candidate (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Per the guideline, it doesn't even seem like the song needs to make the top 10. Ryan Vesey 21:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Pump up the Jam

Isn't this song a cover of "Pump up the Jam" by Technotronic? I mean the music is quite similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.147.183 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's possible, but not an obvious sampling like he did with Axel F. Can someone provide a news source that relates the two songs? The Paul Lester article has these quotes.

* "It is, basically, Pump up the Jam meets the Macarena with a dash of Cotton Eye Joe."

* "It's generic ravey Euro dance with guitars, or at least it is if Psy's other tunes are any measure. These range from the thrashy disco of Blue Frog and Champion, which heavily samples Axel F by Harold Faltermeyer, to the homogenous guitar/synth sub-Prodigy blare that is Right Now and the rap-metal revisited of We Are the One, although we like the video, in which the North Korean military kidnap Psy."

The former is almost source worthy but I was hoping for a writeup like the second quote. AngusWOOF (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Latvian entry?

Apparently this song has charted number 1 in Latvia, just as France has SNEP, and Germany has Media Control AG what's the name of the latvian chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azure4arceus (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It has topped China, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Philippines & Thailand too, but I don't know how to source for the chart data, although I do have the sources to back me up. ZephyrWind (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 October 2012

From the article:

{{pp-protected|expiry=2012-10-17T21:54:ic36Z|small=yes}}

This yields the following tooltip:

This article is semi-protected until Error: Invalid time..

I don't know what the intended time is (that exact timestamp format isn't familiar to me, I think it contains some timezone data), but I do know that it shouldn't look like this. 81.232.114.228 (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

After digging around a little more, I found the expiry and the desired format. The desired modification is:

Remove: {{pp-protected|expiry=2012-10-17T21:54:ic36Z|small=yes}}

Add:       {{pp-protected|expiry=2012-10-17T21:54:36Z|small=yes}}

--81.232.114.228 (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

West Indies team did Gangnam Style during the 2012 ICC world T20 tournament which they won

They did it after every wicket during the final and at the end of the match the whole team did it like crazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.181.34 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Should a small table describing the song's reception in a few selected foreign countries be included, or would it be better to remove the table and just integrate its contents into the text? Should the reception in a few selected foreign countries even be included in the main article in the first place? -A1candidate (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific on what you're talking about. Are you talking about the charts? Erick (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No, not the charts, see Reception (Old version). I know the full table doesn't belong here, but I was wondering if anyone thinks its okay to include a small selection of important countries in the main article. Or should its contents be integrated into the text instead? -A1candidate (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh that, yeah I agree with you. There's no need for reception sections to have a table.

Update frequency

I think every time the viewcounter increases by 2 million or more, anyone else's thoughts? 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that the video has generated 10 million views daily, do we really need an update 1-2 million views? AngusWOOF (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the views should be rounded off -A1candidate (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Another option is to publish an update whenever a news source mentions the newest number of views. AngusWOOF (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That'd be a massive pain I think. Googling news sources to update. 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's a pain to dig up a news source. I'm fine with daily. The news will probably report it when it takes over the eighth spot or reaches 500. AngusWOOF (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be updated daily, with the figure rounded down to the near tens of millions of views eg 416,137,523 views --> 410 million views. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nearest 5 million IMO. 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Introduction Vandalism

""Gangnam Style" has been highly praised for its catchy beat and Psy's humorous dance moves in the music video and nipples live performances."

Please remove "nipples" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.169.107 (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why?--88.111.125.204 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Who cares about Korean music? This should not be popular at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.137.99 (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

POV

From what I understand from WP:NPOV, as long as opinions are attributed in the text to its rightful sources and not treated as facts, then it seems acceptable to me. The quote seems to be a valid one that represents the opinion of a significant percentage of K-Pop fans, this opinion is also supported by Simon/Martina Stawski's Al Jazeera interview, I think it would be of interest to readers who may want to know what other K-Pop fans think of the song.

Furthermore, the fact that Allkpop and Soompi mentioned about the song immediately after its release is not an opinion but a fact, and in my opinion, should be treated as such. -A1candidate (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Merging Gangnam phenomenon

I propose that Gangnam phenomenon be merged into this article, as the "phenomenon" is completely tied to the "Gangnam Style" song and video, and should thus be covered here, not in a separate article. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it's been merged already. AngusWOOF (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The page was deleted and simply redirected to this article. This is a page about a song, however, I think the "Gangnam Phenomenon" meets the criteria at WP:N. It seems well covered by many indepedent 3rd party sources. Whoever "merged" it (or rather, blanked the page and redirected it to Gangnam Style without including any of its contents) should have discussed about it first, in my humble opinion -A1candidate (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like User:Staszek Lem did the redirect. Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Publicity stunt

Wondering if it's worth mentioning this rather obvious publicity stunt by a UK radio jock that involves the song. [3] Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of hidden templates

Per MOS:COLLAPSE: "boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content". This article has 3 such hidden sections. One of these sections is just regular article content and I have no idea why it would be hidden. The other two sections are lengthy lists of quotations. These should be removed or moved to Wikiquote per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I tried resolving these myself, but was reverted. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Im the editor who created those 3 sections (But Im not the one who reverted your edits).

In my opinion, several third party sources have claimed that "celebrity tweets" have been the main reason for the song's success, for example, The Wall Street Journal says that T-Pain tweet "sent [the video] to the stratosphere" and Der Spiegel wrote that the singer owe's his success to Katy Perry's tweet, etc. Taken as a whole, this could be a relevant section that may explain the song's success outside its original country.

Also, as per WP:WORLDVIEW, I thought it could be a good idea to include opinions from sources outside the English speaking world, perhaps the list could be shortened a little to exclude some smaller countries, but I think it might be unfair to remove it completely. I believe the song's reception in some significant countries such Brazil, France, Germany, China, India, etc could be included in a table form, it may be better than simply writing the song's reception in prose, in my humble opinion -A1candidate (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

what's up with the name dropping in the lede?

ok we get it everyone knows this song. you don't need to add the name of every publication or celebrity that has mentioned it.

why are foreigners so thirsty for American attention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.16.94 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Or is it American contributors / selfpromotion?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.198.194 (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC) 

Why does not the article say that the song is a parody of the Gangnam lifestyle?

A Korean friend tells me that this is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.198.194 (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tracklisting

Wouldn't it be better if this section is merged with Release history? -A1candidate (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Daily newspapers update

Can someone with editing right add the following to "National daily newspapers who reported on this..." section: Serbia, Blic / Blic Online, URL: http://www.blic.rs/Zabava/Vesti/343464/Gangnam-style-usao-u-pet-najgledanijih-spotova-na-Jutjubu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.34.190 (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Who cares about this "Gangnam Style" crap? Its just a bunch of Asian hysteria and should be deleted from Wikipedia. i don't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.137.99 (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

it's the most liked video in Youtube history and a triumph of viral promotion, not to mention a huge international meme. It may not be the most important thing in the world, but it is a well-sourced article documenting this important pop-culture phenomenon. 24.47.119.179 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Writing and Production credits

Can someone affirm the way that Psy's writing, direction, and production credits are displayed on the single? AngusWOOF (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I referenced the US Billboard Rap Songs chart for the writer credit which is listed as "P. Jai-Sang, Y. Gun-Hyung" but expanded the initials to their family name. Other Billboard charts list it the same way.

"Rap Songs 2012-10-20". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media. 2012-10-01. Retrieved 2012-10-12. AngusWOOF (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Logging in won't enable me to Edit the page

Another thing is that while I'm registered from some time now, yet I cannot edit the page even when logged in. ;) Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxa (talk • contribs) 21:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ai Weiwei

The famous Chinese artist Ai Weiwei made a parody video of Gangnam Style. The article is protected, otherwise I would add it (maybe in the last sentence of the lede?). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LAefTzSwWY Vividonset2 (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Its mentioned in Gangnam Style phenomenon -A1candidate (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Horse-riding dance

In the Music Video section, the first line - "The music video shows Psy performing a comical horse-riding dance...." - has a link to "horse-riding". Would it not be better to link to a new page of horse-riding style dances world-wide? I think I'll go ahead and do this. Heavenlyblue (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

How is that not Wikipedia:Listcruft? AngusWOOF (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, if other horse-riding dances exist. And it would definitely not be a trivia list. Compare, from Round dance:

"There are two distinct dance categories called round dance. The specific dances belonging to the first of these categories are often considered to be ethnic, folk or country dances. The dances in the second category are more closely related to social ballroom dancing."

So, a category of dance covering a number of widely varying styles with a general commonality of form is perfectly legitimate. (If, indeed, there are others.) Heavenlyblue (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Views

Nothing on the viewcounter issue? 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC) October 22, 2012 Youtube views froze at around 531,984,265 without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakhirev (talk • contribs) 13:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's my opinion:

As long as the total views are under 1 billion, rounding down to the nearest 5 million seems fine to me. If it ever goes past 1 billion views, then it should be rounded down to the nearest 10 million. This could give the impression of an up-to-date article, without turning it into a live counter. Would that be okay for everyone? -A1candidate (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant the frozen viewcounter :P 86.168.217.200 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be a limitation of Youtube, so everyone missed the chance to be the 500 millionth viewer. The number of likes seems to update with refreshes though. Is there a media source that raises this issue? I do see articles about youtube counters being stuck at 301 though. AngusWOOF (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing, but every time the viewcounter updates it does so for a short amount of time then it stops, frezing. 3|9|3|0|K (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 October 2012

In the section near the end of the article, about the viral spread of the music video, Josh Groban should be mentioned as one of the celebrities since he is one of the first American's to tweet about the video. It can be sourced with the existing source number 229 or there are several others that can be used instead such as Josh Groban's twitter account of the original post: https://twitter.com/joshgroban/status/230459113790902272 and he is also listed on the Wikipedia page "Gangnam Style in Popular Culture": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangnam_Style_in_popular_culture . There are plenty of other sources out there as well if 229 is not enough. Thank you, Jessica M

67.241.21.144 (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Psy at Dodger Stadium

The article is quite misleading on this point: "PSY performs "Gangnam Style" at Dodger Stadium, August 20. This marks his first public appearance in the United States". This is summarized in the lead section as "PSY has brought the "Gangnam Style" dance to various locations such as The Today Show, Saturday Night Live, Dodger Stadium, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and Samsung commercials."

The reality is Psy was a spectator at a Dodgers game and the audience cam caught him. It zoomed in on him and he then waved and did a dance for a couple of seconds. The above quotes from the article make it seem like he came and gave a live performance at Dodger Stadium. Whether it was a "public appearance" is debatable. Comparing that moment to guest appearances on The Today Show, etc., is bizarre. --C S (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

He was a spectator, until he started dancing and it was shown on the stadium's big screen for everyone to see, and in turn, those few seconds were reported by the MSM. His first actual TV appearance (on VH1) is mentioned separately. -A1candidate (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Japan release

The Japanese release of Gangnam Style as Roppongi Style was cancelled because the Korean response was negative, not the Japanese. They then decided to not go with the name change and just release it as Gangnam Style, but then Psy's unexpected success worldwide put those plans on hold since America was a higher priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.218.165 (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam Style charts

Sp33dyphil is reverting my edits for the Gangnam Style charts, which were right. Why is he reverting them, when they were right and it wasn't spam? I worked on it for a while, and now it's all gone.--Lucky102 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

United States NFL Touchdown celebration dances predominantly Gangnam style

In the NFL, the predominant celebration dance after touchdowns are Gangnam Style interpretations. (Best Sunday NFL Dances) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.151.54 (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, you may add it to Gangnam Style in popular culture -A1candidate (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggest removing that word "predominant" from the article if it was added, as the reference does not imply that or any tallies. AngusWOOF (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Views Chart

I think the view chart is wrong because I don't see Gangnam Style there, which has a lot more than the 40,000,000 views, which said number 1.--Lucky102 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The area in which the article says "Gangnam Style is the 2nd most viewed youtube video". Well, the link for the chart is wrong.--Lucky102 (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Senguri and Daesung

Hi, I'm randomly searching around the internet, and some sites suggest Senguri and Daesung from Big Bang play old men in the video. Is this confirmed? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Japan Times: Fellow Big Bang members Daesung and Seungri make cameo appearances in the "Gangnam Style" video, in which they get blown up by Psy -A1candidate (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh geez, I just saw this was already in the article, when I had asked the question. And here I thought that I had discovered something new! I must have skimmed past it. Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Need help with translation

Can someone who speaks Russian tell me whats going on in this article (the part where Gangnam Style is mentioned?) Google's translation seems inaccurate -A1candidate (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Countries Viewed In

So the article talks about its far reaching impact, being viewed in a whopping 222 countries. There is one oh so minor little problem that that statistic.... There are 196 countries (or 195 if you don't count Taiwan) in the world. So being viewed in 222 countries would indeed be an incredible feat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.241.203 (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is no standard number of "countries" because it all depends on how you define a country. By the way:

• CNN International: can be seen in more than 260 million television households in more than 200 countries and territories through a network of 38 satellites.
• London Olympics: Over 10,000 athletes from more than 200 countries competed in 30 venues
• Coca Cola: has operations in more than 200 countries

-A1candidate (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead isn't too long

I think the lead summarizes the article well enough, if you think there's further useful information to add then dont hesistate to do so. I think its unfair to tag it as "too long" (Look at other song articles such as On the Floor and Call Me Maybe). -A1candidate (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, then the tag harms you not at all, and some other editor who disagrees with me will remove it soon.

See wp:lead, and more generally wp:MOS. There are a huge number of citations in the lead. If the lead were thoroughly supported by the body, the sources would be there, and there would be no need for them in the lead. This is fairly typical of Internet meme articles.User talk:Unfriend12 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead is almost entirely supported by the body -A1candidate (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"There are a huge number of citations in the lead. If the lead were thoroughly supported by the body, the sources would be there, and there would be no need for them in the lead. This is fairly typical of Internet meme articles." User talk:Unfriend12 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

already removed -A1candidate (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gangnam Style/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ElectroPro (talk · contribs) 23:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Over the next few days, I will give a thorough review of the article,"Gangnam Style",which had-and still- gives me some happiness.Greg Heffley 23:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, I'm actually done

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a great piece of work, but not perfect

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   no issues here

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The UN statement in the rest of the world section needs a reference.

   Already referenced to this. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

   Correct reference is actually here, but thanks for pointing it out I've added the correct ref to the article -A1candidate (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   the parodies section doesn't seem so focused, in my opinion.

   I believe it to be focused, and that it states the major aspects of them. The parodies section is still linked in with Gangnam Style, and should be included. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   not biased

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   no recent edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   all images are perfectly tagged

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Besides the parodies thing, this article seems GA-ready. i just need a second opinion for the focus

Greg Heffley 00:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC) P.S., feel free to question my decisions.

Hyuna

Is that Hyuna in the music video?--Nikinikolananov (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

yes Redalert2fan (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes!I watched the Gangnam Style duet with her and though,that the woman in the video is her!Sorry if you don't understand me!I'm not from english-speaking country!--Nikinikolananov (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Do we really need both the Gangnam Style article and the article on the Gangnam style phenomenon? Seems to me that the info could be merged into this article. 24.47.119.179 (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Wikipedia is also thinking of merging Gangnam Style and Gangnam Style in popular culture

This article is about a song (Synopsis, Reception, Charts, etc) that has become a phenomenon. Its impact outside music and entertainment (Stock markets, academia, etc), is well-documented and significant enough to deserve its own page, in my humble opinion -A1candidate (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Three articles on this song and its impact seems excessive. I would say that at a minimum, the IPC and phenomenon articles should be merged into one article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As discussed on the talk page of Gangnam Style in popular culture, these articles can be viewed as a valid content fork. -A1candidate (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not some ordinary song. It is amassing a massive view count on YouTube, numerous celebrities and TV personalities had danced to it, and has topped music charts in 33+ countries, all in a short time. In particular, it is the first Korean song to penetrate the British and American charts. I think it's totally unfair to compare this to previous singles, since it has such a wide cultural impact upon the world. I see no problem with maintaining the status quo. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally oppose such a merge, there's sufficient verifiable content to justify them all, as well as Sp33dyphil's comments about the global impact of this song. The only change I see as necessary is perhaps, within the next few months, gradually pushing the "in popular culture" article closer to prose, perhaps a teeny bit of trimming. But as for the articles' existence, all three have solid reason to stay, separate. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)]

Since the consensus seems to be against a merge, can someone please remove this tag because as a major contributor to the article, I dont want to remove the tag and then get accused of edit reverting. -A1candidate (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Tag removed. I, too, am against the merge. - GroveGuy (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

List of records attained

I recently added a list of records attained by the song under the section "Achievements", which i dont think is trivial nor does it belong to other sections. That aside, I do believe that it is appropriate to mention about the records it achieved (even if more than once) where appropriate. One example would be Madonna (entertainer), the article mentions about the singer being a "best-selling" artist several times - In the introduction, biography, and legacy, which are all appropriate and desirable, in my opinion.

If there are any objections to a list of records, lets discuss it here instead of edit reverts and not discussing the issue. -A1candidate (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think that I said the list is trivial, no, that is not what I meant. What I meant was, people tend to add trivial records/statistics that aren't notable to sections like this. At the moment, there is not need for a list, since the records are already mentioned in the lead and . If the list was to be kept, how exhaustive would it be? Are you going to add the fact that "Gangnam Style" is the first K-pop single to reach the No. 1 position in countries like Australia, etc? By the way, how is the Madonna example similar to the issue here? There aren't any lists or tables on that article. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That is completely true. On the other hand, it is up to us editors to keep an eye out for inappropriate/trivial content. The lead serves to summarize important information from the article, it is not a subsitute for further commentary of the records attained. The United Kingdom is the world's 4th largest music market and is much larger than that of Australia's. Germany and Japan both have an important music market, but other Korean songs have topped their charts in the past ("Hand in Hand" in the former country and "Paparazzi" in the latter.) Just like Gangnam Style, Madonna (entertainer)'s article mentions the records attained several times -A1candidate (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam Style is currently nominated on Channel 4 for best video, and here is some proof http://www.channel4.com/t4/music/4music-video-honours-cast-your-votes of the video awards and here's proof he's nominated for best video, http://www.4music.com/video-honours/8/4Music-Video-Honours-2012-Best-Video/ Lucky102 (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Does that count as a nomination?--Lucky102 (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 November 2012

I would like to edit Gangnam style because some of the iinfooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo is off kthx 72.228.158.171 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To edit this article, you will need to create an account, and then become autoconfirmed, which means the account needs to be at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits. Or, you can make a specific (change X to Y) request for someone else to make the changes. RudolfRed (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

original tune

It looks like it is based on Pump Up the Jam. According to The guardian - new band Psy It is, basically, Pump up the Jam meets the Macarena with a dash of Cotton Eye Joe ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C968X8g9lA and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ui_MVLPRS4 ) Neuromancien (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian's review of the song can be found at the "Critical reception" part, you could add that extra quote into that particular section, provided there's a way to somehow integrate it into the text -A1candidate (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok done thank you Neuromancien (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Parody: UC Berkeley Style

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNrqx6eZgj4

On August 25, 2012, a video with the title "Berkeley Style" was uploaded onto YouTube by KPG Cal & KUNA students from University of California, Berkeley, a Korean Performance Group and Korean Undergraduate Networking Association. The video has reached a total view of 500,000 in just one month, and it was aired on OnDemandKorea in just 3 days. Being one of the earliest parody video, mass amount of global recognition of the video took place. According to the video's English translation, the parody uses different locations of the Cal campus to higlight the life at Cal including times spent at libraries, local restaurants, events such as Calapalooza, and many more. Berkeley Style is recognized by a number of different media groups because of its outstanding uniqueness to depict a story specific to the topic of the parody. As mentioned above, some of the recognitions include, Spreecast group interview on October 4th, CalTV infocus segment interview on October 3rd, Myx TV global 'Gangnam Style' parody contest 2nd Place on September 28th, Broadcasted in S.Korea on MBC (MBC스페셜) on September 21st, and much more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeleus (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like this would be suitable at Gangnam_Style_in_popular_culture#Parodies_and_reaction_videos -A1candidate (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it oppa is just my style or OPPAN is just my style at last sect?

I know it is OPPAN gangnam style,but what about this? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.128 (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This explains better "oppan" http://hallyu8.com/topic/14389-for-those-of-you-saying-oppa-gangnam-style/ Evaders99 (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so it says it's "Oppa n' Gangnam style," and it means "Oppa is Gangnam style." Now then. What the heck is "Oppa"? Google translates 오빤 as "Brother Doug." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.147.28 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppa means "older brother" - better explanation here http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2009/06/ask-korean-wiki-oppa-oppa-oppa.html Evaders99 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam style being most watched

Even though it will be pretty soon, it isn't at the moment, it is around 500,000 behind Justin Beiber's song.--Lucky102 (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

change it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.250.227.235 (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• [4] The news confirms that. Earlier today it said they had 815 million views, and when I checked it was 816 I putting that in the article, and now its 820 million views just a few hours later. They play a Justin Beiber song in an advertisement for something of his before this video starts. Dream Focus 00:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Recommend we round down to tens of millions now that the record is set. Next major one will be 1 billion.AngusWOOF (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why would we do that? It'd be inaccurate. Dream Focus 01:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the archive for the discussion: Talk:Gangnam_Style/Archive_1#Update_frequency Reason we rounded was to prevent constantly updating the article whenever Youtube feels like updating theirs. AngusWOOF (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. No reason why someone can't check and update it, and mention the date they last checked. Primary sources are fine for this sort of information. We're an encyclopedia, and we strive for accuracy. Dream Focus 01:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not set a quota number to make it official that Gangnam Style is the most watched video in Youtube over Bieber's Baby? A quota that can't be immediately overtook by fans, maybe around 10 to 20 million views over the former Number One? Arius1998 (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no possible reason to not mention the most accurate numbers. People can just update it regularly as they do with movie totals, video game sales, number of issues of a manga or comic book, and other such things. Dream Focus 15:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note, the past conversation only had one person say it should be rounded down to the nearest 10 million, others suggesting other things. So no consensus was formed to do this strange unencyclopedic method. Dream Focus 15:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - The accuracy of the rounded figure is identical to that of the non-rounded figure. It's the precision which is diminished. The relevant guideline here is WP:PRECISELANG. This article is currently being updated multiple times daily so it is fine to give the most up-to-date and precise information available. -Thibbs (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with rounding down to a million, any further precision would be ridiculous. The example in the section right above goes: "As of 2008, construction is expected to finish in 2012 and cost US$28 billion." The video gets 10 million hits a day so that's 10 stat only updates if someone really cares to monitor this. AngusWOOF (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Genre

The genres of the song has to be referenced. According to The Washington Post and the BBC, the song belongs to the K-pop genre and Im fine with that, but please provide reliable sources to back up "Korean hip hop", "hip-house" and "electro-house" if you dont want them removed. -A1candidate (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. This is one of the most constantly changed parts of the article. - GroveGuy (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Western media opinion need to be removed (Wikipedia is not a western product marketing tool!)

The whole article is bias toward typical westerners opinion, as well as all westerner's newspaper brand names, film actors, singers and their bias opinion need to removed or at least the article should include Korean if not the East Asian entertainment industry and its increasing market share deserve to be mentioned.Davedawit (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You realize that this the English wikipedia, which has a large amount of speakers from western countries. Of course it would reference those countries newspapers, films, singers, etc. It is harder to find Korean sources, mostly because many people here aren't from Korea or read Korean media. This is no way intentional bias. The fact that it went viral was due to the large western audience. I bet more of the Korean news would report on it because it made the news in western countries. Evaders99 (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If Dave reads Korean, maybe he could find some good Korean commentary sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes

It was number one in 30 countries. The following should be added to the boxes.
Country Predecessor song and artist Bulgaria Bom Bom Sam And The Womp Greece Den Teriazete Sou Leo, Padelis Padelidis Honduras Whistle, Flo Rida Israel SIMPLE PLAN FEAT. SEAN PAUL SUMMER PARADISE Lebanon Nancy Ajram Ya Banat Luxembourg One Day / Reckoning Song, Asaf Avidan & The Mojos Mexico Aguaje Activado Calibre 50 Mexico Airplay Aire Soy, Miguel Bose & Ximena Sarinana Netherlands Asaf Avidan One Day / Reckoning Song (Wankelmut Rmx) Portugal This Is Love, will.i.am Featuring Eva Simons "will.i.am" South Korea I Love You I Love You Spain JUAN MAGAN / BELINDA TE VOY A ESPERAR US Rap Songs No Lie, 2 Chainz Featuring Drake "T.Epps","A.Graham","M.Williams" "Def Jam" IDJMG | — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a start:

Somebody with write access needs to put this in...

Columns

With the huge number of references, should we consider 3 columns instead of 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Romanization Needed

I saw Gangnam Style listed on this page but am unsure where this romanization should be added as it's almost always in the infobox but the infobox here looks solid. Does anyone know why the song page is being auto added to the list of pages lacking romanizaton? ₪RicknAsia₪ 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Where are sources for this?

Where are sources for this-The song and its accompanying music video went viral in August 2012 and have influenced popular culture since then. Really? Influenced whose popular culture? That statement reads like fan cruft.--98.87.95.109 (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not even past the first few paragraphs and this statement is ridiculous-According to the United Nations, PSY has become an "international sensation" through his song "Gangnam Style".[17] I realize there is a citation for this statement, but, it is really taking what happened out of context. The the United Nations as a whole did not say this song is a international sensation, the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of United Nations made the statement. Saying that the United Nations said PSY has become an international sensation makes it sound like the United Nations issued a press release about PSY. I wasn't aware that the United Nations issued Press releases, or for that matter, that the United Nations were keeping up with musical groups and songs. Someone needs to change the statement to read- The Secretary of the United Nations, General Ban Ki-moon stated that PSY has become an international sensation. Or something to that effect. It seems to me that a few editors involved with the Gangnam Style article are fanatics of the song. I could clearly see this by reading through the talk page archives. It seems to me that these editors have a POV to push.--98.87.95.109 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources are there, but I do agree with you that the statements from organizations should specify the person who actually said that if available Some news articles only list the agency - the United Nations article happens to be one of them :/ AngusWOOF (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ban Ki Moon's personal opinion: "the Secretary-General noted that the singer could be a force for global good"

UN's opinion: "Through his song ‘Gangnam Style,’ PSY has become an international sensation..."

Further reading: Official press release -A1candidate (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dutch cover version

I suggest to mention the Dutch cover version 'Zwarte Pieten Stijl', which links the song to the local Saint Nicolas (Sinterklaas) celebration, under the header 'Other parodies and covers'. It is a big chart hit in the Netherlands. 80.79.32.43 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So is that the first cover version to chart? Should that be mentioned on the main page along with Oppa is just my style? AngusWOOF (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Charts, again

The charts have gone wrong again, because Gangnam Style isn't even there. Could someone change it back to the old one, because I cannot find it. --Lucky102 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The charts document the song's peak position, its not there to track the song's current chart movement -A1candidate (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just wondering, because earlier it was for example, by number of views.--Lucky102 (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Haven't I explained did during an earlier post? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 20:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about them Charts. I'm talking about the Youtube Charts Most Viewed.--Lucky102 (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you looking for this one? http://www.youtube.com/charts/videos_views?t=a It's still linked from the lead paragraph. AngusWOOF (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not the most ranked. They are completely different rankings.--Lucky102 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2012

As of Dec 3, 2012, Gangnam style has over 878 million views. At current rate of 9 million views per day this video should exceed 1 billion hits on or about December 16th, 2012. This will be the first Youtube video to do so. Tschaar (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Unsourced WP:CRYSTAL violation. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

guys LISTEN

This has been updated on dec 3rd, but why??? We need the update for last week 800, not 819 like it is now right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.14.207 (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

PROTECTION NOT REQUIRED

How come this is semiprotected? 76.124.224.179 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2012

Add interwiki link please - ur:گانگنام سٹائل Fmc47 (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done -A1candidate (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Should it be noted Gangnam (강남) is pronounced "Gahngnam" As it's actually pronounced "Gahn" (in Korean) no "Gang" --101.175.195.34 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

United Nations

The article utterly misrepresents the United Nations position on the video and the artist. Ridiculous. The United Nations did not "hail PSY", nor has the United Nations taken any position on the matter. Any remarks (and the article is loaded with numerous claims as to the UN and PSY) to the contrary are a misrepresentation of the institution.

Any claims as to the United Nations position require a reliable secondary source to establish their notability. Wikipedia is not the proper place for clever jokes.....19:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.25.95 (talk)

Ban Ki Moon's personal opinion: "the Secretary-General noted that the singer could be a force for global good"

UN: "Through his song ‘Gangnam Style,’ PSY has become an international sensation..."

Further reading: Official press release -A1candidate (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You reference the opinion of a man, and not the position of the institution - and your link is to the house newsletter. The inclusion of it fails on so many levels starting at the requirement that we use neutral secondary sources. 76.239.25.95 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinion of a man? When did the Secretary-General ever made that statement? If you're looking for newsletters instead of news articles I would recommend here. -A1candidate (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

merge of Gangnam Style by country

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gangnam_Style_by_country ended with merge to this article. How could you merge that much content? Gangnam Style by country Why not keep it as a separate article, it well referenced. And three other related articles are at AFD now: Gangnam Style in popular culture, List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style, and Effects of Gangnam Style Be a rather long article if that was all merged here. Dream Focus 21:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel that it was hastily closed, there wasn't even consensus. No one ever opposed or even addressed the reasons that I gave for keeping the article, yet it was somehow decided that the article has to be merged. Sure there's a lot of trivial content but also a lot of verifiable, encyclopedic information that I would have worked on improving had it not been deleted. Well, go figure -A1candidate (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I just went and created the Cultural phenomenons Wiki, and exported your article and its full history there. Go to http://cultural-phenomenons.wikia.com/wiki/Gangnam_Style_by_country and you can work on it as you see fit. I'll see about other cultural phenomenons to fill it with. If you want, I can make you an administrator and you can help. Dream Focus 23:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate that, but I have to take a break from editing so actively from now -A1candidate (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

University Parodies

Under parodies/covers it says "Ohio State University (The Ohio University Marching 110)" The Ohio University Marching 110 is NOT from Ohio State University they belong to Ohio University in Athens, Ohio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.82.160 (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for catching that! AngusWOOF (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Song Genre

Can we add hip hop Also since kpop already sounds like this is Eurodance necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.48.30 (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No adding of extra genres without backing it up with reliable sources -A1candidate (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

here's two reliable sources mentioning how the song went number one on the billboard rap charts idk why it's not letting me post the links so I typed them out like this

spin dot com /blogs/how-did-psys-gangnam-style-become-the-no-1-rap-song-in-the-country examiner dot com /article/psy-s-first-us-no-1-with-gangnam-style-on-rap-chart-due-to-billboard-shakeup

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.48.30 (talk)

examiner.com website is black listed from Wikipedia, so you will need another source.

spin.com has this quote that refers to Wikipedia so it is a circular argument:

The fourth question Werde poses specifically addresses “Gangnam Style” and its position as a rap song: "Psy as the top rap track?! You are a racist who is trying to gentrify the rap charts." Werde begins answering this histrionic question by linking to a Spotify playlist of his "favorite old school" rap songs to illustrate his "rap cred." The playlist wanders from “Planet Rock” to Aesop Rock and really couldn't be a better example of Billboard's Editorial Director not understanding subgenre distinctions. Werde also cites Wikipedia, which calls PSY a "rapper" as evidence that "Gangnam Style," is a rap song. But the song is K-Pop. Would anyone argue with that? Indeed, Wikipedia categorizes the song as "K-pop," "electro house," "hip house," and then, finally, "Korean hip-hop."

Can someone check iTunes or Amazon, and see how they classified the song? AngusWOOF (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Warning

This page is semi-protected until October 17, 2012. I'll make a note of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.205.66 (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, this page is protected until January 13, 2013 (See protection log here)-A1candidate (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

READ THIS PLZ

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why do we need to update the pages views every day, now its 830 million right now!184.98.115.2 (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC) STOP UPDATING THE VIEW COUNT ONLY DO IT WHEN IT HITS A 100,000 MARGIN OKAY GUYS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.115.2 (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Why? No reason for it not to be as updated as possible. Dream Focus 05:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC) They're meaningless edits that don't add value, not to mention they somewhat clog up the article's history. Instead of updating the figures every two hours, maybe people should work on articles that actually require updating. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Suggestion: Once this video hits 1 billion views, how about rounding it off to 2 decimal places and updating every 10 million views? For example from 1.02 billion to 1.03 billion. Any thoughts? -A1candidate (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Doesn't harm anything to do it this way, and it doesn't clog up the edit histories, that just nonsense. You can easily scroll through the edits and ignore them. Updating by the million is fine, you not needing to do it by the ten million or anything else. Dream Focus 13:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012

957 million views 98.198.4.10 (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Pol430 talk to me 23:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I did it, since I was around at the time. Not too important, but whatever. And if the meaning is understood, the delivery is irrelevant. Dream Focus 00:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2012

Earliest notable reaction video by K-pop fans Brenda, Chrystal and Shahren; uploaded to YouTube on July 17, 2012. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPJgk1ULX_I 110.174.139.203 (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Notability unclear due to lack of mention in independent sources -A1candidate (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Derp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.60.49 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Horse's saying

In the video in the last part the cartoon with the horses and Psy shows up. What is the horse saying? It's written in Korean. Gryffindor (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It just says "Oppan 'Gangnam Style'". Nothing special. 75.182.65.149 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

doomsday

Should the article mention yet another internet meme this song has spawned i.e. that the world will end when it reaches 1 Gigaviews on youtube (Similar to hanging out in Bugarach and Şirince )? A lot of newspapers picked up on the story. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/12/december-21-mayan-end-world-gangnam-style-psy-nostradamus_n_2285027.html#s1872872&title=1806_
• http://www.focus.de/kultur/musik/weltunter-gangnam-style-wird-psys-erfolg-den-weltuntergang-ausloesen_aid_884195.html
• http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/414317/20121212/gangnam-style-apocalypse-psy-nostradamus-nine-circles.htm
• http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/409642/20121129/nostradamus-prediction-end-world-gangnam-style-doomsday.htm#.UNQQQ2_aVvA

WTF XD. LOL. In all seriousness, I think these speculations are somewhat undue for this article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewind YouTube Style 2012

Is Rewind YouTube Style 2012 worth a mention in the "Other parodies and covers" section? [5][6] ZappaOMati 17:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning because PSY also participated in the production of the video -A1candidate (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merges

So has there been any discussion over how we're going to merge Effects of Gangnam Style, List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style, and Gangnam Style by country into this article yet? I'm haven't seen it yet.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It should never have been merged and I still stand by my opinion that the articles should be kept and expanded instead -A1candidate (talk)

One billion views and 2012 phenomenon

Are you serious about this section? Let me just list some of the "references" used:

• http://cooltopicz.blogspot.de/2012/12/style-1-billion-views-coincides-with.html
• forums.allkpop.com/threads/lets-help-psy-get-1-billion-views-for-his-gangnam-style-mv.50812/
• YouTube comments from official video

I do see a ref from Billboard and another from National Public Radio, but the articles referenced has got nothing to do with the content of this ridiculous section -A1candidate (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've reverted recent changes by User:IgnorantArmies because:

• Not a single piece of information from those 4 articles were merged into this article, and you're already so eager to censor it?
• "Gangnam Style" became the first video in the history of the Internet to be viewed more than a billion times, thats according to (Billboard)
• Consensus was to merge related pages, not to blank the entire page

-A1candidate (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I quit, I give up, I should never have let myself go so far into this. It's late in my part of the world, and I need sleep. To be frank, it's editors such as yourself that make me stay away from the more "popular" articles of Wikipedia. I'm removing all of this from my watchlist—have your article, do you what you wish with it. IgnorantArmies – 15:10, Saturday December 22, 2012 (UTC)

If consensus was to merge, not delete, then it should be done properly. You can't just ignore what everyone else agreed was best, just because you disagree with them. Dream Focus 15:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

People who have danced

We need to seriously discuss which people from the list of people who have danced gangnam style should be merged in here. Obviously they are all not particularly relevant, but I'm sure there is some information we can use.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me, this main article should be left alone and the other list kept (not merged). A few names are added to the list every 1-2 days and it was foolish to have even considered merging it. But I guess Im the only one who thinks so...-A1candidate (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, consensus seems to be that it should not be a standalone article. I'm going to try to take a look and see which names are worth bringing over (which honestly won't be a lot of them).--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Heads of state?

A list of heads of state who have danced gangnam style, with pictures and all? It's a music video, for crying out loud, and this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Articles like this makes all of WP seem like a joke. Thomas.W (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Its more than just a music video... its also a song, a dance and a global cultural phenomenon. A joke? I dont find it funny at all. -A1candidate (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What's next? A list of heads of state who have danced the waltz, or fox trot or whatever? I don't mind having an article about "Gangnam Style" as a cultural phenomenon and a viral video, but adding a list of heads of state who (allegedly) have danced gangnam style is plain ridiculous. Something you might see in a high school newspaper, or something, but not WP. Thomas.W (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I do understand your point of view, a long list of heads of state seems to be a little out of scope for this article, there are other things to mention as well.... but then again, I wasn't the one who insisted on merging everything here -A1candidate (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Move table to List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style. Move "See also: List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style" under "Other parodies and covers". Leave the daughter articles alone. If nobody does this, I'll do it. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that those articles were nominated for deletion and the result was a merge of all content to Gangnam Style, which I strongly oppose and tried prevent from happening, to no avail. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style -A1candidate (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Woah, how did I miss the discussion? I totally oppose the merge, the song and its impact is quite unique, but I guess it's a bit late to do anything about it. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone blanked the page at [[7]], so it looks like I'll soon have to merge its content over to this article too, unfortunately. But on the bright side, I believe User:Dream_Focus voted against a merge too, so maybe we may just have reached a consensus to remove that annoying merge tag....Right? (I cant remove it myself cos Im already at the risk of edit-warring) -A1candidate (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

1 Billion Views Milestone Animation

The page is locked and I can't edit it. Can someone put this image in? Thanks! :)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gangnam_Style_1_Billion_21.12.2012.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swadloon541 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This image would have been a great addition to the article except that its going to be deleted soon because of a lack of information on its copyright status. -A1candidate (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately some secondary media sources wrote about the icon and its two locations. AngusWOOF (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Triviality of people that have danced Gangnam Style

I think that this article should list notable people that have performed the Gangnam Style dance. It is relevant to understanding what impact this song has had on notable people and society as a whole. However, the details of how they've done it and when they've done it is extremely trivial to an article about the song as a whole. Furthermore, things like information that notable people have done the dance only in private are also very trivial. It's not relevant to this article that, say, Obama did the dance in private for his daughters, and that they don't want him to do it in public. Details like these are just not notable. For this dance, it's really only notable—and barely at that—if it's been done in public. We have to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a place we can just fill up with every piece of information we want. Just because something is true and verifiable does not necessarily mean that it is something that should be entered into an encyclopedia like this one. Trivial facts like this run completely counter to the policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Trinitresque (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree, the article is full of trivia. Some I have identified:

1. Simon and Martina Stawski - impossible to say if they were the first to parody it. Source is only a primary source and original research.
2. Why does it mention that Call Me Maybe had 1.5 million views a day and discusses it? off-topic
3. The endless amounts of blogging/tweeting/parodying/dancing/reaction videos etc of by celebrities long past their prime or people non-notable to begin with, which only have primary sources. District3 and Rylan Clark losers of a british talent show for example.
4. Two american girls (Katie and Mindy Anderson) watching it and recording themselves, reported on a single blog nobody cared about.
5. 2012 doomsday hoax is based on a single source, yet it has its section title?--Toddyswag (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have always repeated myself countless times, a lot of information needs to be moved to other pages (and not merged here). Seems like nobody cares, though. -A1candidate (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This trivial information shouldn't exist anywhere, not just on this article. WP:TRIVIA doesn't just apply to main articles. It applies to Wikipedia as a whole. That's not to say that this information shouldn't exist anywhere though. That's why Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself also created Wikia, the information-indiscriminate version of Wikipedia. Trinitresque (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The list of people who danced were carefully selected top sportsmen/politicans/cultural figures from different walks of life and from different countries. If those names dont deserve to have a standalone list for themselves, then they should not even be included in this article at all. I dont see the point of simply throwing all the names into a single section without any sort of classification. Gangnam Style was recently listed as a good article before these merges, but if it is to stay as a good article then the entire section should be either split or deleted per WP:SS -A1candidate (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. I just did it that way because I wanted to get the merging over with. I don't necessarily think that is the best way to have that content. Trinitresque (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2012

I'd like for Mitt Romney to be added to the list of notable people who have performed the Gangnam Style dance. A video of him doing the dance can be found here 69.14.36.184 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

He's not the real Mitt Romney and even if he's real... I dont think any more names should be added to this already long list without splitting the article but apparently Im the only editor who thinks so -A1candidate (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. But thanks for sharing, that was kind of funny. Trinitresque (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Flashmobs?

These are more like open air concerts, not flashmobs. By Wiki's own definition a flashmob is "a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then quickly disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment, satire, and artistic expression." The people who assembled to see PSY perform in Paris, etc. are no different than the fans who appear at MSG to see Madonna in concert, and so forth. 98.218.174.69 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Source which called it a flash mob says: Alerted on social media by the record label Universal Mercury, together with radio station NRJ, a massive crowd packed the Trocadero square to join the artist in a rendition of his much-imitated horse-riding dance. But I've changed the wording to "dance performance" so that its clear for everyone -A1candidate (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like the media writers are tweaking the definition of flashmob to include any non-ticketed mass gathering? AngusWOOF (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Split

Information from articles previously merged here needs to be deleted, and the following merged articles restored :

• List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style
• Gangnam Style by country
• Effects of Gangnam Style

-A1candidate (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The AfDs clearly stated that each of those should be merged here. You may not have like the outcome, but I doubt consensus has changed from the closing of the respective AfDs to today. AniMate 18:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Its not about whether I personally like it or not. Its about Gangnam Style running in danger of losing its status as a good article because in its current state, nobody is going to actually read the article except for maybe the lede and the first few sections. If you actually manage to read Gangnam_Style#Notable_people_that_have_danced_Gangnam_Style (at its current state) from beginning to end despite the excessive list of names...then Im entirely fine with that. -A1candidate (talk)

Its not as though someone is going to come along and yank the GA status without giving regular editors a chance to improve it. The article will have to go through WP:GAR if someone thinks the status has changed, and interested editors will have a chance to work with the reviewer so it maintains the GA status. Your desire to keep this as a good article doesn't mean you get to ignore the AfDs. You started all of the articles you're trying to re-split. If there is too much information to merge, that is largely your own fault. I'm going to echo Trinitresque above and say that if you're interested in writing about every single micro-detail about the song, you should probably check out Wikia. AniMate 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The AfDs were entirely based on the presumption of recentism (which shouldn't be the case, given that this song is already almost half a year old). Keep in mind that consensus isn't permanent (See WP:CCC). Im pretty sure I wasn't by far the only one who added information to this article. If you think something is trivial, why not help to re-write it? In any case I was actually hoping to hear from regular editors of the article who have also contributed to make this a good article. (Not saying that the opinions of all others dont matter) -A1candidate (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And just for the record: I may have been one of the most frequent editors to this article, but I certainly wasn't the one who added this, this, or this. -A1candidate (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Best solution for the list of dancers is just to remove it as WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#IINFO.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Article length

As it stands, this article is 5 times as long as the article on the performer himself. It is almost impossible to edit this page because of its excessive length. There needs to be some sort of decision as to remove some content that is not necessary for the understanding of the song and is merely here because it can be reliably sourced, or to split content off into viable articles that are not the indiscriminate lists that were recently deleted at AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No such thing as removing relevant content just because the entire article is too uncomfortable for you to edit. There are tonnes of articles with similar length. BTW those previous articles wern't deleted, instead they were voted to be merged here so that's what we editors have to accept unless consensus change. -A1candidate (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia editing guideline WP:LENGTH: "Total article size should be kept reasonably low, because many users edit from low-speed connections including dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections. [...] Articles of about 200kB (~30 pages) are not uncommon for topics that require depth and detail, but it's typical that articles of such size get split into two or more sub-articles." Gangnam Style is 195kB. Trinitresque (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Now whether or not "Gangnam Style" requires such depth and detail is another matter. The list of dancers is gone (because it was really trivial and taking up about 5% of this page's space). The parodies can probably go to their own page due to the length of coverage that they are given here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have always supported moving a bit of content to other pages, and Im glad it seems like there's finally a consensus do so. On the other hand, the parodies section is nowhere as long as its previous section (which fill up the entire screen), and I doubt shortening the parodies section itself will make any impact on article size at all. In my opinion, the best way out would be to restore the article "Gangnam Style by country" and remove everything from this article thats already mentioned there (except perhaps the video by the North Korean government). -A1candidate (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Countries most viewed

Is there any way to find out the countries the Gangnam Style video is most viewed in, because, some videos have it in information, but Gangnam Style doesn't, is there any other way? If there is, I think it should be added into the article.--Lucky102 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is a way to find that out... however, Gangnam Style is still a current cultural phenomenon and the list of most viewed countries keep changing from time to time. I thought it would be better to add this after the hype has died down, but if you're interested to know - In November 2012 Gangnam Style was mostly viewed in the USA, India, the Philippines, Malaysia, Canada, UK, Serbia, Indonesia, Turkey and Mexico (source) -A1candidate (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see the countries. I really want to, but that's only a bit of the way, I see no other button to click to see it!--Lucky102 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

2 Legit 2 Quit (Hammer vs MC Hammer)

If anyone cares, for what it's worth, it should technically be Hammer not MC Hammer when mentioning him at the American Music Awards and Dick Clark's New Years Eve event since he was billed as Hammer (as seen during the performance on TV as well) and because he was Hammer (and now is again when performing the mashup) during his 2 Legit 2 Quit album after dropping MC. Just for technical reasons, maybe someone should/could change that. Hammer for example. Thanks! :) Happy new year... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. It's also how Seacrest addressed him after the performance during the interview portion. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 January 2013

This article is semi-protected indefinitely in response to an ongoing high risk of vandalism. 69.122.190.4 (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So? What's your request? For it to be indefinitely protected? ZappaOMati 22:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 January 2013

'view more than 1 billion times on the internet' - should be changed to YouTube, specifically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0

 Not done - Billboard's official industry website says G.S. is the first video in the history of the Internet and not just YouTube to reach and surpass one billion views. Read more -A1candidate (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.176.205 (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this change too, saying a video is the first ever video to reach billion views in the 'history of the internet' is a very bold statement. It is not a measurable fact beyond a doubt. Billboard are using YouTube views as the source, which we know are not reliable.

And if we're using youtube view counter as a source, it's not the first to reach a billion views.--Toddyswag (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, because the video in the sources you provided have the video getting over a billion via a glitch, not legitimately like Gangnam Style. ZappaOMati 23:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Charts

Can we put this pic on the charts?I made it!--Nikinikolananov (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

update on # of views

now there are over 985 million views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobob10101 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 December 2012‎

Who cares how many views this video has? I suspect most of it was generated by robots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.103.80 (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Update precision

I notice contention over how often the view count should now be updated, with editors favoring 2 digits of precision repeatedly undoing updates to 3 digits claiming that ten million views are not relevant with over a billion total. With over a billion views, updating to 2 digits can potentially ignore up to around 99 million views, while updating to 3 digits can potentially ignore up to around 9.9 million views. As many YouTube videos struggle to gain even 10 million views, I assert that 3 digits remain relevant. Past reports in the media have included three digits of precision but also two or even only one digit.

What is your opinion on the acceptable view count precision? --Armonizan (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with you here - its inaccurate to round of the views by that much. If you look at World population the number is given at 7.061 billion (4 digits) -A1candidate (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Critics picks?

Is Critics picks in the right section? Should it be in Critical reception? They don't receive any particular award or set any record for being in some critic's top X list. It also favors their annual ranking. Also, subcategories should not have "The" in them. AngusWOOF (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

YouTube Top 100

Can you please help me improving YouTube Top 100--62.22.53.100 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

PSY's Gangnam Style Pistachio Superbowl ad

Not sure where it'd make the most sense to reference this Pistachio's ad within this article. It was a delight to see it on Sunday! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yFyy-n27cQ

The making of is also a hoot - what are the policies about linking out to youtube videos? especially one this new? I'd love to be able to add it myself but hate having my edits reversed because I didn't know the right protocol - would welcome your help! DrMel (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lyrics Psy - Gangnam Style with English translation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raslen11 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Youtube link should follow WP:YOUTUBE standards. They should come from an official reliable media source, not a fan's recording/reposting. The English lyrics are already presented from the Business Insider article listed in External Links. AngusWOOF (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a media article that references the video - Huffington Post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/gangnam-style-pistachios-super-bowl-commercial-psy_n_2613259.html If you're looking for a good place to put the ad information, it can be placed with the ad Psy did for Samsung refrigerators. AngusWOOF (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't edit

I can't edit the article. What is wrong with the servers? Every time I try to edit it, a Wikimedia server error message comes up. Epic Genius 14:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Upgrade protection level?

Epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fresh Prince of Bel Air Dance

I think you should mention the Fresh Prince of Bel Air Dance. It's the same as the horse dance, men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.228.22 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

While it's not the first time someone has done a dance like they were riding a horse, this statement needs to be referenced by a reliable media source if you want to add this to the article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hyuna

There's a move discussion which might be relevant to this article too. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please edit this?

Because I cannot edit the article myself I would like to point out that it states "As of April 1, 2013, the music video has been viewed over 1.5 billion times on YouTube" A few paragraphs later it says "On April 6, 2013 the video on YouTube reached 1.5 billion views." Can someone please clarify which of these is true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.149.145.8 (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done moved to 1 billion views and counting subsection. The one billion milestone stays in the lead as it's more notable. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Birth time" of Gangnam Style

Anyone knows the hour in which was uploaded the «Gangnam Style» official music video onto YouTube? Thanks--190.173.59.107 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)