Talk:Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)

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

Release date[edit]

This page really, really needs to mention when the single was first released, as well as when it was released on an album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.136.48 (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Ugly Betty?[edit]

Inspirded in Ugly Betty? Betty la Fea, colombian soap opera???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.68.55 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single cover[edit]

That's not the official cover, it's part of the remixes she released. We have to wait until the official single cover is released, but for now I'll remove it. --Evengan (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 100 peak[edit]

The chart table should not show a peak of both #67 under 2010 and #63 (current) under 2011. A song only has one peak position. It wasn't a re-release, the song has been given "new life" due to being released as a single. Nothing wrong with a mention in the prose under a chart performance section, just no need to list two peaks in the table. Wanting to show how a song did over two years is not a valid argument because what if the album was released in January and the single released in December of the same year - would you then have two peaks for the same year? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Key signature[edit]

With the given progression, it's fairly obvious that the key center is D#, not F#. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me2NiK (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MV reception[edit]

Is "The Prophet Blog" a reliabe source to be featured on the article? I don't think so... somebody should remove that quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.117.141.225 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance[edit]

Why is there no "chart performance"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.35.74 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree there needs to be a chart performance section here!--Jakeriederer (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil[edit]

"The Crowley Broadcast Analysis Brazil is one of the company since its inception specializes in electronic monitoring broadcast audio that operates in Brazil since 1997, when it began monitoring their radios for musical purposes. Today, Crowley produces reports based on the musical performances of the radios of Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Brasilia, Campinas, Curitiba, Porto Alegre, Recife, Ribeirão Preto and Salvador. And all this in more than 350 radio stations in Brazil. That's why our reports show, with absolute safety, which is really popular in Brazil. "Who said http://www.crowley.com.br/musicmedia/home.html read more This makes the site a bit more reliable right?

THERE ARE 2, Normal we can see here: http://www.hot100brasil.com/

And even with a record of Billboard Brazil, but both are valid

http://www.crowley.com.br/home.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.136.121 (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crowley Broadcast Analysis is fine, but hot100brasil.com has nothing to do with Crowley Broadcast Analysis. It's an amateur chart, and has been listed on WP:BADCHARTS for years.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Record breaking #1 on Top 40 mainstream[edit]

http://www.billboard.com/news#/column/chartbeat/katy-perry-notches-record-fifth-no-1-from-1005299782.story

Fifth #1 from Teenage Dream, the only album ever to have 5 #1 Top 40 hits. Also, most plays in one week ever, with 12,468. — MusicMonster96 (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Elliot remix[edit]

We should definitely include some info about the Missy Elliot remix that comes out on monday! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.241.23 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral?[edit]

Most of the lead and chart performance does not appear to be neutral. Words like "claimed fame" should be ommited. In my opinion, the whole article needs copy editing from a good English contributor. - Saulo Talk to Me 18:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Seems fine to me now. I can't find anything not neutral. Can we have a consensus to remove the NPOV tag? MonsieurKovacs 17:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonsieurKovacs (talk • contribs)
    Well, we can remove the NPOV tag, but it still needs a good c/e. - Saulo Talk to Me 00:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the opening paragraph, at "Musically, the song is a pop-rock (NOT indie rock, how can a song...)" the section in brackets is quite passionate. If we're going neutrality here, we should probably remove it. Fahim from Edmonton, 10:55PM Sept 4th, 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.170.235 (talk)

Wrong quotation[edit]

" 'Broke the law but I forgot' is often blanked out in radio versions of the song." The only problem is, that there's no such line in the song. "I think we kissed but I forgot" and "Yea I think we broke the law" are existing ones, but there's just no line like that. TomyHun (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T.G.I.F.[edit]

I cannot find the meaning of T.G.I.F. anywhere in this article (and I don't know the song). I found its meaning (Thank God It's Friday) in the Dutch article, but shouldn't this information be in the English one as well? Or is this abbreviation too obvious for the English speaking? Clausule (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --User123o987name (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be written as "Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)" in the lede. --User123o987name (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfixed. I don't think it helps the reading flow to put that much clutter in the first sentence.
Some kind of reference should be used that ties the phrase to this song. I looked around and found a pretty good blog but it's still a blog. Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protagonist's age[edit]

The Reception and release subsection says Kathy Beth Terry is 13. However, the lyrics contradict this, as they include: "we maxed our credit cards", "don't know what to tell my boss", "think the city towed my car" and "had a menage á trois". A thirteen-year-old has credit cards and a job, owns and drives a car, and had a threesome? Jim Michael (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genres[edit]

I think the genres on this article need to be discussed. The current genres are so off I can't even. I understand its according to sources but it's too much. The original genres on the article were pop rock and dance-pop, tell me how on earth does that all of the sudden change to indie rock, Hi-NRG and disco? What? I don't know who decided all of the sudden they were going to remove the original two in favor of these. I think it would be more appropriate to list those genres as influences in the composition and not as infobox genres. Like I said it's too much. We should keep it down to two genres and keep it down to Pop genres because that's the main style of Katy's music. Nicholas (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original genres were only sourced to musicnotes.com, which really, they're just put there based on the sound of the artist as a whole. Generally I, and other editors, only use it when there is literally no other sources from actual authors. So instead of just removing it, they normally get listed as "influences".--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setting[edit]

Some things, especially the clothes, suggest it is set in the 1980s. However, Kathy has a modern laptop which she uses to access the Internet and plays Wii Just Dance. Teenagers in 2011 would have been unlikely to have attended an 80s-themed party, nostalgically reminicing and reliving a time before they were born; even if they did, a Wii would not be played at an 80s-themed party. This doesn't make sense - is there an explanation to this? 188.28.79.254 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest explanation is that they're having an 80's themed party which includes playing Just Dance on the Wii. Despite reservations, that seems a sensible explanation, and makes far more sense than many other pop videos. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NRG-pop issue: Not a real genre?[edit]

Considering that NRG-pop is not an actual genre, I think it should be either removed or linked back to Hi-NRG, the original genre. Otherwise it'd be meaningless; a non-existent genre with no interlinks or explanations would probably only confuse a reader. "The sound of this song doesn't match the description" can not be rationale to remove the hotlinks, because it'd be a personal view. It'd actually be even more subjective than claiming that NRG-pop comes from Hi-NRG. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It actually would be an issue, because it would make one article contradict another. If the song's audio description and song genre type doesn't match the genre description it's linking too, it'll be tagged with a banner that states that one article doesn't seem to match another. As this is one source, I'm sure we could put efforts together to find other descriptions for this song that will match the description from this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, obviously a critic thought that the song somewhat resembled the Hi-NRG style; so he/she labeled it as "NRG-pop". Otherwise, the "NRG-pop" description would be absolutely nonesense. I personally think that it'd not be a contradiction to link it to Hi-NRG. Nevertheless, if the source itself and its claim is regarded as dubious, I think it is best to either remove the genre until a better source is found or label it as something general, such as pop music. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious how the reviewer felt it related to the genre, and since it's just an exaggerated style, I'm fine just having it labeled as pop. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over a week and if there's been no other arguments, I'll be changing it over now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Last_Friday_Night_(T.G.I.F.)&oldid=1208081303"