stringtranslate.com

Talk:Zombie (The Cranberries song)

Protest song

How can I link to the specific subsection ("violence and guns") in "protest songs"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdob (talk • contribs) 12:00, 19 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]

[[List_of_protest_songs#Protest_songs_concerning_guns_and_violence]] would make List_of_protest_songs#Protest_songs_concerning_guns_and_violence and [[List_of_protest_songs#Protest_songs_concerning_guns_and_violence|more descriptive title]] would make more descriptive title. In this case, protest song is a more appropriate link, it has a description about the term. On the lower left you can find "What links here". If you add Zombie to the list page, it'll automatically appear there. Also see Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Oh, and you can sign your input (usually only on talk pages) --~~~~, which is also on a button (skin I use anyway) --Dyss 01:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A protest against what? All I heard is a woman shrieking "yehukahuka ZOMBIE ZOMBIE!" over and over again.Pookleblinky 12:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is about the conflicts in Northern Ireland known as The Troubles.
http://www.lyrics007.com/Cranberries%20Lyrics/Zombie%20Lyrics.html
When replying on a talk page, most people use a ":" before the reply so that it looks like this. Not a big problem on a small page like this, but in large pages it can get confusing. --Dyss 00:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Erm, a protest against what? Its obvious, just generally against the conflict "its the same old thing, sinse 1916"- There had been no progress towards resoloving the troubles. and how the British media and public portayed the southern irish as supporting the IRA, when they really wanted the conflict resolved. "can't you see it not me, its not my family, in your head they are fighting" this is the "zombie" state of mind she refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.9.4 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Cranberries - Zombie.jpg

Image:The Cranberries - Zombie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Donny (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video image

I uploaded and linked a screenshot from the music video for this song. I also added fair use on the image page for this use. I feel it better shows how the singer is made-up to look very much like the saint mentioned in the article section. Feel free to shift and/or shrink the image in the article for better flow. I did not include a caption but go ahead if you think it needs one.

Kresock (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing Pumpkins' Disarm

Are there any articles noting the similarity between these songs? The chord progressoin's the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.244.91 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description of music video

I remove the part where it describes the makeup as "Egyptian". Here it is from the article, "She wears an Egyptian headdress as well as Egyptian eye makeup, reminiscent of the Egyptian Goddess Isis. Standing in front of a cross, she's surrounded by golden children with bows and arrows". An encyclopedia should not TELL the reader what it THINKS she is reminiscent of.

A reader can watch the video and come to that conclusion on their own. Its original research; its taking purely from whoever wrote it THOUGHT and got the impression. For me, personally, she looks nothing like Isis. And her headdress is not Egyptian, its "Egyptian-looking". Isis actually doesn't even wear a headdress like that, if you like at ancient illustrations. It is as if someone saw The Mummy and thought, "Wow, she looks like what I saw from the mummy". But that is not a valid source.

What people THINK is Egyptian and what is actually Egyptian are too different things. Someone familiar with Egypt might read this and get the wrong impression. Its original research. Furthermore, to say that she is reminiscent of the goddess Isis is to imply that that is what the artist was going for, which unless cited really doesn't hold water. Again, a viewer can interpret that for themselves. Lol, also, the children were silvery, not golden. Saying she is in gold makeup and is surrounded by silver children in front of a cross is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really like how passionately you feel about this! I agree with you, though I think the word the original poster was looking for was Cleopatra-like. The gold colour was to emulate the impression of King Tut's death mask and the hair was a reference to several made up ideas of what Cleopatra looked like. At the end of the day, yep, "An encyclopedia should not TELL the reader what it THINKS she is reminiscent of". Youtryandyoutry (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances in other media

The part about the Youtuber referencing this song doesn't seem like it should be in here. It seems to be unwarranted promotion. Doesn't seem worthy of inclusion and doesn't have any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5803:3660:71FC:44C3:4DC3:8DC1 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Zombie (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

There's a dubious section here called Composition which declares the beats-per-minute of the song at 84 bpm. The album recording (at 82 bpm) is faster than the live performances of the song, which tended to be in th 72-75 bpm range. It's actually the reason the live performances dragged, in my not-asked-for opinion. I'm removing the mention of the bpm altogether because it's not consistent across all performances of the song and it's just a weird statement. That leaves the fact that it's in E minor. Is that relevant? I'm deleting that too cause having a whole section just to tell people it's in E minor is a bad way of presenting this information. Correct me if I'm wrong though. We could just write that in somewhere else in the article. Here. I'll do that now. Cheers Youtryandyoutry (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time the song released

I think these a mistake and the song released only at 1994, not 1993 Nirvadel (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official release is 1994 everywhere on the web, but first record is 3 may 1993, in France : https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/c-est-lenoir/the-cranberries-03-05-1993-6113080
May be you can add it to this page. Cochardp (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Parry with the covers?

This section was moved into a new Legacy section which usually appears at the end of the article at Wikipedia. The table of contents for the covers has now been changed to a Renditions section. I think the Legacy section should come after it. The article deserves a Legacy section. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Hi. Colin Parry is the father of the IRA victim, he is not "a legacy", it's a comment that he made after O'Riordan death. It should stay with the Cranberries, not below the covers; it's embarrassing. Colin Parry with Bad Wolves and Miley Cyrus? The singing voice sub-section is about the yodeling, her technique, and her voice, you can't merge with the critical reception of the whole song. I spent a lot of time on this page. Oroborvs (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your really nice efforts on this page make me think twice about your comment. I think it might make sense to have a short history section at the top of the article, possibly by separating the background from the composition in the top section of the current article. That way the first paragraph currently in background could open the new history section and it could be followed by pulling up the sections for both Censorship and Colin Parry to the top of the article. In theory, at least, that sounds like it might give these 2 aspects of the article more emphasis and provide better context for the article as a whole. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Ok if you think that will improve the quality of the page. Cranberries' specific content logically cannot fit under the covers section, since everything belongs to the historical context of the original song. I would like you not to delete any text unless it is poorly written. The section about her voice is very precise (chest voice, head voice, falsetto) and corresponds to the descriptions found in Yodeling. For the #Legacy section, I don't see what content, and where you would like to place it. Covers should be notable as you know. And the quote box in gray should be moved to #Production and release, I think. Oroborvs (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a look at what I had in mind since you mentioned the possibility of something to improve the page. I have made a Separate section of background and composition into 2 sections, and merged legacy, censorship and performances sections to provide new structure for new history section. I think it gives a better table of contents to the article as a whole and you can adapt and adjust things to make any improvements you feel enhance the article ErnestKrause (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Users do not own Wikipedia pages, anyone can improve the page as long as we follow Wikipedia's policies. For my part, I have followed a natural chronology to help the reader, and when I worked on the page I based myself on WP:SONGS (Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs) and on the FA-Class song articles which demonstrate that they have a #Live performances section at the end of their page, only reserved for songs played in concerts, such as: Something (Beatles song), City of Blinding Lights, Push the Button (Sugababes song), or 4 Minutes. I appreciate your involvement and the creation of the first three sections (#History and background, #Composition, #Production and release) which is great, but merging the live performances with the IRA bombing as an introduction to the article is non-compliant. Oroborvs (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section put together follows Wikipedia policy for a comprehensive history section to appear at the start of the article, and to be a comprehensive version of the history with its ups and downs. Since this is a protest song, the ups and downs I think are unavoidable. It might be helpful if you could look at the Louder sound interview with The Cranberries dealing fully with this song. I tried to find a link to it though I could not find an active link. Possibly you already know this article in Louder sound. Regarding the status of the article now, it is currently marked as C-class on the talk page and I would be interested to know if you would like to enhance and improve it some more. You have over 1000 edits here and its important for me to know if you would like to move the article forward. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Hi. I did not see the article in Louder sound, but thank you for the info. I assume your good faith, but now there is a chronological issue in the article. The #History and background section should end under O'Riordan's quote, which contains a summary of the Troubles, the IRA bombing, and her feelings about it. Then the band wrote the song: #Composition → #Production and release → #Reception. Live performances section at the end of the Cranberries' content as it appears on the FA-Class song articles, which makes sense since a band first wrote a song and they perform it afterward. Even though it's a protest song, it's still "just a song" played at concerts, it has no weight compared to a 30 years war and all the deaths; that's why live performances should not be merged with that. Also, the death of an artist and the reactions that follow always appear at the bottom of the body, not at the top. That is why it should return to its original shape with the #Live performances, #Censorship, and #Colin Parry sections at the bottom while keeping what you did: #History and background, #Composition, #Production and release. Although it was marked as C-class, the article was stable for months and already had good article criteria from a clarity point of view. It is a content dispute. I want to suggest interaction with a third opinion → Wikipedia:Third opinion (edit: #Active disagreements). Oroborvs (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the purpose here is to improve the article, then much of what you say can still be applied though my own thoughts are along slightly different approaches. My feeling is that the article's table of contents looks better now with less splits for special topics. It seems that the article can be brought up for peer level review comments with about another dozen or two dozen edits. That to me would sound like moving the article forward and then getting the peer review comments which you would like to see. Regarding your comments on the History section chronology, it seems that you are thinking about the separate sections of this article as subsections of the new History section as opposed to their being separate topics for presentation in the article. The Beatles FA for "Something" which you cited above in your comments, for example, did not have a separate Performances section for the group performances. The current History section seems to give a comprehensive overview of the history of the song from its start to contemporary times. Then the other sections go ahead to present discussions of separate aspects of the song's production, composition, etc. My own thoughts are that the article might look better with more details added in the Composition section, and the article as a whole might also look better with a new Lyrics section added which is currently not in the article. If you would like the move the article forward towards a peer review evaluation then that sounds like it would be a good idea. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Why didn't you requested directly a peer review of my work? I expanded and improved the page several months ago, that's what I don't understand since my model was: Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song) which is a FA-Class song article, and you can find the #Music video section with the same subsections titled "Accolades", and "Synopsis". This is the standard, not a personal taste. If you want to add more details in the #Composition section that's because it's weak now since you have split the original section with #Production and release. You analyzed the text to be too long, but there is no maximum length for a text. I hadn't done it for this reason. You add a Lyrics section if you want, I don't mind, but it's not encyclopedic. I am worried that you would delete the quotations in the Quote box, they are relevant. Don't merge the cover with the Cranberries' content, please, covers are always at the bottom. If you want a peer review evaluation there's no problem, but I don't see anything to merge because each song article has its #Music video, #Reception, #Charts, and #Covers sections, that's why I can't see what you're trying to merge with the Composition section. Oroborvs (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some of the preliminary material to the composition section so that you can see what I meant. Regarding my own assessment of what you have done for this article, I think you have done a really good job with the collection and formatting of the references which are in very good shape. The FA articles which you are quoting look to me like over-reach at this time, whether its the Beyonce article you like, or the Beatles song you previous mentioned. With about one dozen or two dozen more edits, I think the article can have a stronger table of contents and some stronger expanded sections which would help to promote the article from C-class where it is now. The Beyonce article which you like so much does have a Music and Lyrics section and I think this article would benefit from something like a Lyrics section. Would you be ready to try to do such a section for this article to help expand it and enhance it further? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause:The initial version could have been brought to GA, with grammatical, punctuation, and redundancy correction, nothing more. The article was ok, other experienced users have checked the article. Now there's an overuse of quotations WP:QUOTEFARM. "I think you have done a really good job with the collection and formatting of the references which are in very good shape": you forget that the whole text of Cranberries and Bad Wolves was written by me, and the time spent doing research. What is your legitimacy to say that "The FA articles which you are quoting look to me like over-reach at this time"? Also, the first section finishes with "O'Riordan's death", and the second starts with "O'Riordan had a feeling"; what do you think of that? If you merge the covers with the Cranberries' contents, it will be reverted. Oroborvs (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

PASSED
Good article nomination passed, after comments in review were sufficiently addressed. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zombie (The Cranberries song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Igordebraga (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy to take this one on. This has been one of my favourite grunge songs for my whole life, seeing it sung by Ireland fans at the Rugby World Cup last year gave me chills. This is a long monster of an article, so it has taken me quite a few days to write this review, I hope you'll bare with me as I go over it all and I hope my comments are helpful. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Background

Composition

Production and release

Music and lyrics

Singing voice

Critical reception

Praise
Criticism=
Accolades
As a sporting anthem

Chart performance

Music video

Background and production
Synopsis
BBC and RTÉ ban
Reception and accolades

Live performances

Censorship

Formats and track listings

Charts

Certifications and sales

Bad Wolves cover

Music video
Charts
Certificates and sales

Miley Cyrus cover


Other notable covers

Lead section

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    There's some minor prose issues, mostly in the earlier sections, but nothing not easily fixable.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The lead section really needs to be longer, per the manual of style.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    All references are properly formatted. It does strike me as odd that Gulla is given Sfn formatting, rather than being an integrated inline citation, given it's the only source that gets this treatment. I'd recommend reformatting that source, but honestly, this is a minor quibble.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    There are some problems with sources not being cited inline with the information they're citing, and a couple cases where I think the wrong source is being cited, but everything is given proper sourcing.
    C. It contains no original research:
    There's a few cases of synthesis and possible original research, noted above. I think these should be more or less easy to fix though.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig mostly flags properly attributed quotes,[4] so no issue there. I noticed a couple cases of close paraphrasing that should be addressed, but these are easily rewritten.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Addresses everything so thoroughly that I would be surprised if it missed anything.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    I think there are a couple cases where it goes a bit off focus and gives undue weight to some things that could be more concise.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Given the subject matter of the song, I think it's impressively neutral, not taking a clear stance one way or the other. It highlights praise and criticisms with I think the weight they're due.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    There have been a few reversions over the past couple months, but nothing major like an edit war. I don't see this changing substantially from day-to-day.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Album covers have valid fair-use rationale.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Album covers are clearly relevant. If anything, I think this article could do with a few more images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Well this took me a good long while to review, but I'm through it now, I learned a lot while reading this. For the most part, I very much enjoyed reading this article, but there are some things that currently hold it back from passing the GA criteria. It needs a longer lead section, citations need to be checked and brought in line and possible cases of synth and undue weight dealt with. But I think this could get over the line with a bit of work. Feel free to ping me when you've addressed my comments and if you have any further questions about them. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think I addressed all the concerns (and even others you hadn't asked for, as while rewriting I saw fit to cut down, rearrange and expand parts), see if I missed anything and if any new additions are well written enough. igordebraga ≠ 06:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic work! Thanks for seeing to everything so thoroughly. I've noticed a couple things that need tweaking, but they're so minor I can do those myself. I'm more than happy to pass it now. Thanks again! :) --Grnrchst (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.