From LyricWiki
[edit] Parental Advisory
This song shouldn't be under parental advisory. The text is not really explicit, she kissed a girl to try out and is not in love. Furthermore Katy Perry explained the meaning of the song that she wanted to sing about beautiful women, so beautiful that even women are impressed by their look. -- Chris 15:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
- We don't have any criterion for applying PA here. If someone wants to stick it on a song about puppies and rainbows, they can. --Aquatiki - T - E 00:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well of course, but everyone who notices would remove this label at once if you'd stick it on a song about puppies and rainbows, because it's just not sensible there. I can understand that some might like to have this lyric under PA, because its inappropiate to kiss a girl as a girl. But I am not one of them and if there are no rules on where to stick pa onto, then there are no rules where to remove or not. But this would be childish because I remove you revert I remove again and so on, so not really helpful. So I would like to discuss about this song, and I would like to see which specific line or paragraph did let you add the pa-label. Maybe I then can understand what is "wrong" about this song. -- Chris 14:38, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
- First off, I never really saw the use of that template anyway. It's mostly used now for songs which contain a word like "fuck" once or twice, usually in terms like "fucked up". I don't think it is ever used with another argument than the default. And if you want to use it anyway, use {{Parental Advisory}} instead of {{Pa}}, it also pushes down the offensive lyrics. Secondly, I understand that in some cases use of the template may be defendable or even desirable, but I really don't see why it would have to be on this song. We can make it a vote, but I say: speedy delete ;) (wow I'm getting the hang of this Wikipedia jargon) --Mischko <img src="/images/3/31/Talkicon.png" alt="Talk to me" /> <img src="/images/1/1e/EsperanzaIcon.png" alt="Esperanza Member" /> 17:07, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
- I have a different understanding than either of you. When I said someone could stick it on "puppies and moonbeams", I meant that it would stay on there. No one can take it off, once it's on. We are non-judgmental about people sensibilities and if someone wants PA on, then it's on, end of story. Otherwise, we supposing there is some consensus of morality or we're attempting to institute a system of ethics. I don't think Wikipedia policy applies here. --Aquatiki - T - E 17:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
- Actually, that's exactly backwards. We have no policy as to what a PA song must contain, so any PA template can be removed. Non-judgmental about people's sensibilities is one thing, but there aren't any of George Carlin's "Words" in the song. I'm for killing the template altogether, really. It hasn't any guidelines, it's totally subjective, and is contrary to the site non-censorship stance. PA is soooooo 80s. (And I can say that, as I was a teen in the 80s. Kids used to look for the PA advisory so that they could know which albums would really tick their parents off. A lot of artists could thank Tipper Gore for increased sales.) Kiefer talk contribs admin 00:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- When I was new, there was a discussion (LyricWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive/2007 August 1 - 2008 January 30#"Strong Language") along with other which said, anyone can stick it on a page any time. That would seem to be inline with international jurisprudence regarding the definition of porn. That is, no one can agree on a definition, so it operates on "I'll-Know-It-When-I-See-It" principle. Especially with the {{pa}} template, which doesn't even push the lyrics down the page, if someone want to apply it, who are we to say the lyrics aren't offensive to them? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ ¶ 15:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- The topic has been brought to the Community Portal for discussion, but I would like to mention that if the idea is that if someone wants to apply it then they can, then in fairness the opposite must also be true, due to a lack of benchmarks for the template's use. If someone wants it removed, then they can remove it. Kiefer talk contribs admin 21:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're not making any sense; you're OK-ing an endless revert war?!? Someone wants it on, so the put in on. Someone else wants off, so they take it off. The first guy wants it on, so he puts it back. The second user wants it off, so she takes it off. And endlessly... ? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ ¶ 23:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, that is my point...(well, part of it)...that the template doesn't have a way to measure when it should and when it shouldn't be used. Without measurable criteria, it can be removed as righteously as it can be added. This is one of the reasons why the template should be done away with. It's a magnet for such revert wars. Kiefer talk contribs admin 03:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
