Talk:One More Time (Daft Punk song)

Mega Man x 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytoyGIxjry4 link to the character select theme. Not sure why its not mentioned much, but it is very similar to this song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.188.174 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sampling

I have here in my possesion the "More Spell On You" song by Eddie Johns, and in fact it doesn't go like that. It seems someone has looped some things in that mp3 sample posted to make it sound exactly like "One More Time". --81.165.193.157 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is demonstrably so that the song was constructed from "More Spell On You" by Eddie Johns. "One More Time" can be reconstructed using the Eddie johns original. Video proof. --Captainsiberia (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A third party demonstrating by taking a song sample and making it sound like "One More Time" is not really "proof" but rather an attempt to strengthen the belief by example. In the context of Wikipedia, YouTube is also not considered a reliable source. jhsounds (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

He did not make it "sound like" "One More Time." He demonstrated beyond doubt that this is what was done. The sounds are identical; the bass line, the horn sound, even the highest register of the percussion. Not "like": identical. It is proof, not speculation. Oh, and YouTube is a reliable source, no matter how big a snob anyone would like to be about new media. YouTube is, in fact, the equivalent of a library rather than a book, so calling it unreliable is patently ridiculous. Even if this source is not good enough to be considered definitive proof to some, it should still be included as evidence in the case. --68.80.15.17 (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Then look at WP:YOUTUBE for guidelines on YouTube videos. The majority of videos are user submitted and bypass copyrights placed by the original composers. ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Two words: fair use. This video meets that all-important criterion. --Captainsiberia (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify that YouTube's reliability in the context of Wikipedia has nothing to do with YouTube being "new media". It does not have a reliable publication process i.e. anyone can upload a YouTube video. See WP:RS for further information. jhsounds (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed two sources listed as a citation for this claim. A wide spread belief among many that this sampling occurred is not adequate. Sources linked to a facebook page with no related material and a page with just two youtube videos mashed up. On3moresoul (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Idiots... It's CLEARLY sampled from "More Spell on You"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.114.24 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT with reliable sources. Wikipedia deals in verifiability, not truth. I read the Talk page before checking the article. It was proved with a January 3 Vibe article saying the sampling was officially cleared. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The Vibe Magazine Source is absolutely nonsense, because it links to the exact same video and gives no sources to by whom it was officialy cleared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.211.21 (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

WhoSampled points out that "One More Time" does indeed sample "More Spell On You". With my observations on Wikipedia articles and talk pages, I can safely say that WhoSampled is a reliable source. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

From my understanding, WhoSampled is based on user submissions and often lists things as “sampled” simply because they sound similar. After looking at the wiki article, it has come to my attention that another user removed the proper references that were already there regarding the use of the sample, so I’m restoring them. jhsounds (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok then. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

the readdition of a direct link to the sample

the articles i've readded a direct link to provide a sample for illustrative purposes, and hence are fair use. please discuss the matter before deleting them again. --Kaini 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a stub

Do you really think this is a stub? It has more info than most single-pages I know, and they aren't considered stubs themselves. I remove the stub-tag for now, but you can place it back if you insist.

If it was a Top 40 hit in the U.S

Why does it say the song reached a maximum position of #61 there? 76.50.26.30 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DaftPunk OneMoreTime.jpg

Image:DaftPunk OneMoreTime.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) 07:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any information about the Music Video

Could someone put any information about the music video? Why is it anime themed and where was it outsourced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triadwarfare (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Cover version

Why is there such a large section dedicated to the (awful) cover version? Is it really worth such an extensive mention? Besides it's really regional in scope (USA, since it mainly talks about radio stations in the US) --87.119.172.221 (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest discussing it with Canuckdj, a user who is a major (possibly only) contributor to the section. just64helpin (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Old discussion thread, bu I'm proposing we remove the covor version section. It's not a notable cover version, and I have a suspicion from look at the long inactive user that there may be a conflict of interest. I think I'll remove it. Schluum (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this was discussed elsewhere. Canuckdj was in fact the producer of the cover song and repeatedly tried to push this section into the article as well as the main Daft Punk article. jhsounds (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

length

the length of "one more time" on my disc is 6:07, which is not in the box. anyone else have this as the length?--24.109.210.126 (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on the video?

There's nothing about the video on Wikipedia? 98.14.15.12 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on One More Time (Daft Punk song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140423172410/http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/weekend/15967428.htm to http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/weekend/15967428.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)