Talk:List of songs whose title includes personal names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, everyone. I created this list, modelled on others listed in the Lists of songs, because over the years I've often found myself thinking about songs with a particular person's name in them. I was typically thinking of first names (a. k. a. given names or Christian names, for those cultures who use them), but as I put together my initial entries, I thought that that might be too limiting. I did quickly realize some use in separating titles that were entirely a person's name from those that merely contained a name — thus the initial organization.

I hope everyone finds this list useful and enjoyable. I imagine it will grow rapidly and evolve in ways I haven't imagined. I look forward to seeing what everyone contributes! -- Jeff Q 21:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Should "Windy" stay or should she go?

I had added The Association's "Windy" and then quickly removed it myself, but I see Niteowlneils has put it back in. I'll explain my reasoning for leaving it off and see where it take us.

I wanted this list to provide a handy way for people looking for songs whose titles feature their own names or names of friends, relatives, or whomever. As such, "Windy" probably wouldn't qualify, since anything could be used as a name in a song as is done here. I thought about the lines from "Weird Al" Yankovic's "Albuquerque":

So we got married and we bought us a house
And had two beautiful children - Nathaniel and Superfly.

(I'm sure there are many songs whose titles feature unconventional names, but I can't think of one at the moment. But you see what I mean.) On the other hand, for all I know, "Windy" is a first name used by some real people. After all, the famous Phoenix acting family is replete with names like "River", "Summer", and "Rain". I would not want to include the huge number of songs that this would open up, but that's just my opinion.

I'm inclined to leave "Windy" alone and see how things proceed. Any comments? -- Jeff Q 04:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would say that if the artist uses the word as a name, then the song should be in the list, otherwise not. So "Rain" by The Beatles, for example, is about precipitation and so shouldn't be in the list, despite the fact that there's someone called that. I don't know the song "Windy" or if its title refers to a person, but if it does, then I think it should be in the list. Is it named after Windy Miller, the character from the classic British stop-motion children's TV programme, Camberwick Green? [I don't mean that seriously, by the way!] --Lancevortex 10:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Windy" is clearly about a person, however unconventionally named:
Who's tripping down the streets of the city
Smilin' at everybody she sees
Who's reachin' out to capture a moment
Everyone knows it's Windy
Given The Association's psychedelic themes, I can't say if it's inspired by a real (or fictional) person, or just a cool idea. -- Jeff Q 00:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I would vote to keep it in then. Thanks for the research, Jeff Q! --Lancevortex 14:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Research, heck! I love that song! I admit that that's one reason I was reluctant to remove it, regardless of other arguments. -- Jeff Q 01:02, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Conveniently packaged in a single song:

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/adam-sandler/listenin-to-the-radio.html

- - Paul Richter 08:07, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

I appreciate the enthusiasm that some have shown in "correcting" the capitalizations of many of the titles in this list, but I would suggest that it is not necessarily a Good Thing, for several reasons:

  • The rules for capitalization in English have evolved over time and are not even universal at a single time, due to variations in nationality (US vs. British, etc.) and subject (recording industry, medicine, computer technology, etc.). Wikipedia itself has a policy of rendering article names in "first word capitalized, no others except proper nouns" that doesn't follow usual US English publishing practice.
  • Even when they are observed, they are so in a rather ad-hoc fashion, with frequent arguments over how some words should be represented. For example:
    • In "Johnny Strikes up the Band", is "up" a preposition (uncapitalized) or an adverb (capitalized)?
    • Should "Get It On" be rendered "Get It on"?
    • Should one capitalize long prepositions like "beyond" and "under"?
  • One should probably follow titles as rendered by the artists, since they're their songs, and titles are often part of the artistic statements they make. (Think e. e. cummings and k. d. lang, for names at least.)
    • If so, must we validate titles by finding albums for each and every title? That may not help, since record producers may not follow the artists' wishes.
    • If not, can we use a third-party source like All Music Guide or Amazon.com? That is definitely not satisfactory, since I can personally attest to their own inconsistencies and even erroneous title information based on my research and reviewing my own CD collection. Besides, some albums are quite confusing in their policies. (E.g., The Beatles' "Yellow Submarine" lists "All together Now", "It's all too much", and "March of The Meanies", just as three different examples that fit none of the normal capitalization policies.)
  • The recording industry specifically has adopted three major practices to avoid the issue that can be found on nearly every CD released in recent times: render titles completely in uppercase, render them completely in lowercase, or capitalize every word. All-capital words are considered unfriendly on the 'Net, and all-lowercase words look funny in listing song titles, leaving only the third as a reasonable policy for 'Net-based lists.

That last consideration was why I entered my own initial titles in all-capitalized form. I have not objected to people entering titles using different practices, but I don't want to start an edit-revert war over something which the industry itself is of multiple minds about. (Feel free to complain about my preposition-ended sentence.) Unless someone can cite a current, non-controversial authoritative source on the proper capitalization of song titles, I would suggest we leave things as they are and concentrate on adding entries. -- Jeff Q 11:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

* Oops. That was me, sorry. I was trying to follow the style of User:Iam over on the song list pages: (List of songs by name: A, etc). -- Earl Manchester 13:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hey, no problem, Earl. By the way, I really appreciate your efforts to disambiguate many of the artist links — especially since I probably contributed most of the ones that need disambiguating! I'm checking now to see what Wikipedia comes up with before I add them. I'm also asking the List of popular music performers (who presumably are focused on adding these artists) for their recommendations on the "best" way to disambiguate individual artists. As soon as I get some good feedback, I'll post it here and in the "geographical names" discussion pages. (Current informal rule of thumb, for interested parties: add " (band)" to groups, and any of " (musician)", " (singer)", or " (rapper)" to individuals, as makes sense. Better explanation to follow soon.) -- Jeff Q 10:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
By the way, I never got a response to my disambiguation-guidelines query, so I suggest following the guidelines in the previous paragraph. In addition to these, I've seen things linke "Artist (music)" and even genre-specific disambiguations (e.g., "So And So (jazz)", "So And So (reggae)"), particularly useful when a name is used by multiple groups.

[edit] Duke of Earl

How about that song... Earl is a name. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:49, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

While we're at it, what about Don't Fear The Reaper? Is The Reaper his name or his title? ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:52, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Good points. Titles don't quite fit the personal name idea (although Europeans may disagree on this), so that would suggest placing "Duke Of Earl" in the "Contain" section. I would argue that "Don't Fear The Reaper" and "Sympathy For The Devil" stretch the meaning of "personal name". ;) In fact, I would also recommend removing "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus". Anyone have objections or contrary arguments for any of these? -- Jeff Q 12:35, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think we could safely leave in DFTR and SFTD... as the figures don't seem to HAVE personal names aside from their titles. I mean, it's not like "King of Spain" by Moxy Früvous, because the King of Spain would presumably HAVE a personal name that is simply not listed. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:34, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
Also, since Santa Claus is a corruption of Saint Nicholas (clearly inclusive of a personal name), that either has to stay or "St. Elmo's Fire" needs to go. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:36, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
Um, "The Devil" has many personal names (e.g., "Satan") in many languages. Also, I'd suggest that whether "Santa Claus" is a variation on "St. Nicholas" is irrelevant, since "St. Elmo's Fire" (or, for that matter, "Jolly Old Saint Nick") qualifies because of "Elmo" (or "Nick"). I would also suggest that the purpose of the list is not to include all people, who may or may not have personal names, but to list names. Ultimately, it comes down to how far you want to extend the idea of "personal" names. I'm not a fan of including names that real people wouldn't have, but that's just my opinion. -- Jeff Q 09:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Satan" is no more a personal name than "The Devil", it's a title and it means "adversary". But granted, we do have various "names" for the being ("Old Scrotch" being one of my favorites)... I'm not wedded to the idea of including SFTD in the list, I just thought it might be appropriate.
I'm gonna have to play hard-ball on Santa Claus though. Even if you don't count it on behalf of Nicholas, I think it should be counted because it has become his name in the vernacular. Santa Claus is the gentleman's name as revealed by the fact that his wife's name is Mrs. Claus. QED. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:58, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Touché on "Santa Claus"! :-) ☺ -- Jeff Q 01:03, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Abilene

Is "Abilene" by Yes really a personal name rather than a geographical name? The lyrics seem to imply that the singer is in Abilene, bemoaning the absence of someone unnamed. However, they're vague (abstract?) enough that I could be wrong. Unless someone more familiar with the song and its meaning objects, I'm inclined to remove it. -- Jeff Q 12:48, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's geographical. See http://www.lyrics007.com/Yes%20Lyrics/Abilene%20Lyrics.html Abigail 08:00, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Named after a woman called Abilene. Iam 08:54, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Iam, are you speaking from a knowledge of the song's history, or just making an assertion? The lyrics alone don't make this clear. (I don't agree with Abigail's implied assertion that the lyrics alone prove it to be geographical. Having already read that same lyrics page [probably obtained from the same Google search!], I thought it could be like Mark Lindsay's "Arizona", although the latter is clearly referring to a person, whereas "Abilene" still strikes me as ambiguous. And I'd personally prefer to leave out "Arizona", too, since it's an extremely unlikely personal name.) -- Jeff Q 09:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Raising Arizona. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:02, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
I don't make assertions Jeffq, although I have been known to make insertions. My source for names is http://www.behindthename.com/nm/a.html, although I concede the lyrics are ambiguous. Iam 09:38, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the name source, Iam! As they say, you learn something new every day. Since Abilene is a real personal name that pre-dates both the song and the Texas town, it certainly qualifies to be on this list. (Ultimately the intention of the songwriter is irrelevant, at least from my point of view. As I've said elsewhere on this Talk page, I tend to discount words or geo names that songwriters turn into personal names — though I still haven't had the nerve to remove "Windy".) I put "Abilene" back in. -- Jeff Q 11:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think that if the intention of the songwriter is irrelevant, this list becomes utterly useless, as soon as someone discovers someone with a name that's a common word. Do you really want to have every song with 'joke' in the name, just because it's a common Dutch name? Do you want to have anything mentioning water or river here, because those words are used as last names? Abigail 14:28, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Abigail (see my points in the "Windy" thread above). --Lancevortex 18:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Good point, Abigail. Is "joke" common as a first or last name in Dutch? Personally, I'd be in favor of tossing all songs whose only reason for inclusion is a last name, even a common one, avoiding the "water/river" problem almost completely. My interest was originally to provide people with songs that included their given (not family) names. (See my introduction at the Talk page top.) If intent was the qualifier, that could cause problems for people with uncommon but legitimately historical first names (like Abilene). However, using the songwriter's intent could significantly reduce the problem of odd names, even family names, although (as is the case with the song "Abilene") it can be harder to determine. (It also doesn't prevent the inclusion of songs like "For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" — has anyone ever had that name in reality? — but I wouldn't expect that to be too big a problem.) Any other opinions, folks? Should we require intent to qualify? Should we focus on "first" names, reducing the scope of either approach? -- Jeff Q 23:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Joke" is a female first name (and pronounced quite differently from the English word - the name has two syllables). I know several people named "Joke". And, to press the point even more, some people are called "An", short for "Anne" or "Annemarie". As for "Mr. Kite", a google search for "John Kite" alone finds 685 hits, so I'm convinced there are people who can call themselves "Mr. Kite". Abigail 08:25, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
Here's another point why I think the songwriters intention is important. Think about why people will want to use this list. For instance, they are interested to if there's a song where they (or rather, a namesake) star. Do you think someone named Ada wants to find songs about a computer language (assuming they are such songs)? Or someone named Berlin interested in a German capital, even if her name was derived from the town? Note that in the case that they are, Berlin could always to the list of songs with a geographical name, and anyone could always consult the List of songs. I think this list gets it value because someone did some research, and actually checked whether the title is about a person or not - otherwise all we need to do is to add songs to the List of songs, add names to the List of first names (or family names), and spend an hour writing a Perl program that extracts matches. Put that in a cron job, and we can have a new List of songs whose title includes personal names every day (or hour).
Can we reach a decision on whether the songwriters intention is to be considered, or whether we just look for words that might be names in titles? I've suspended working on the lists until we reach a decision. Abigail 12:34, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Seems to me that most of the vocal contributors to this list favor the "songwriter intent" approach. While the Abilene and Anji topics on this page show some of the challenges of this approach, it simplifies several others, especially when one has lyrics for a song in question. Unless someone else wants to initiate a poll (which is beyond my Wiki skills!) or wants to speak up, I think we have an informal consensus. -- Jeff Q 05:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sympathy for The Devil

Is the Devil a personal name? I was under the impression it was a title/being rather than a personal name. Iam 01:32, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is ongoing two sections up in "Duke of Earl". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:55, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clementine

I'm having trouble figuring out if this song is called "Clementine" or "Oh my darlin(g) Clementine". Also, should the artist/writer by "Traditional" or "Various"? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:12, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Many songs are covered by various artists, but only some of those are traditional, so I've been using Traditional wherever appropriate, listing notable covers only if they rise above the pack. As for "Clementine":
  • [All-Music Guide] has 170 recordings listed for Clementine, which is an order of magnitude more than all the other variations combined.
  • A second-hand report from The Traditional Ballad Index (which also says that the song's author is unknown and its earliest recorded date is 1863) lists nine printed citations, all but one of which call it Clementine.
Not really definitive, but I'd list it as "Clementine" in the Exact section. -- Jeff Q 00:56, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cotton-Eyed Joe

Is that an exact match on title, or just contains? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:17, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

My guideline for Exact Name, which I've hestitated to suggest as a general guideline, is, "Would anyone refer to someone by this name in writing?" This might reasonably include "Peggy-O", if that was someone's nickname, but probably wouldn't include "Cotton-Eyed Joe". Or would it? -- Jeff Q 00:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, people wouldn't really include Cotton-Eyed Joe. Meelar 01:07, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why not? It's always advisable to give reasons, since unstated assumptions make consensus-building difficult. Personally, I'd include it in the Contain section because Joe is a personal name. If one goes by songwriter intent, the song says:
His eyes was his tools and his smile was his gun
But all he had come for was having some fun
Even though it's also the name of a dance, this and other verses talk about a person called Cotton-Eye[d] Joe, making it a candidate for Exact inclusion. (Exact is arguable; I'm not sure if Cotton-Eye[d] is capitalized in the song and therefore a proper name.) -- Jeff Q 02:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] XTC vs. Adam Ant

Adam Ant here refers to the band, not the name. Should it be included? Meelar 01:07, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Depends on whether we're including names based on viability as a personal name or on songwriter intention (see discussion above under Abilene.) If the former, it qualifies at least as containing the common name "Adam". The case for "Adam Ant" would be murkier. If the latter, it sounds like it should go. -- Jeff Q 02:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Adam, nor Ant, is not even his real name, so should the list stick to just real people and not stage names? Iam 04:07, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting inclusion because it's Stuart Goddard's stage name; I agree that that's a no-go. (This would also disqualify Santa Claus, since he's not a real person either. Sorry, kids.) I'm suggesting that it only qualifies for inclusion (in the Contain section) if we decide to include songs with legitimate first names, regardless of why they're in a title (i.e., the intent of the songwriter). I agree "Adam Ant" should go if songwriter intent is the sole qualifier. -- Jeff Q 05:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Restricting the list to real people would require the creation of a new page List of songs whose titles refer to real people, I think. Most of the people name-checked in songs in the current list are imaginary. I would say "XTC vs. Adam Ant" is perfectly legitimate for this list: "Adam Ant" is a personal name, whether or not it was given to him by his parents, and although I don't know the song I assume the artiste was referring to Adam Ant the person, rather than the concept of stubbornness, or indeed the British (I think) manufacturer of bathroom porcelain-ware. --Lancevortex 11:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Lancevortex. When I consider the title of a song for inclusion in this list (or the list of songs with geographical names) and it isn't very obvious that the title refers to a name, I check the lyrics and verify whether the title is used as a name in the context of the song. In many cases, whether the name is imaginary or not will be to hard to determine. Abigail 12:16, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
""Adam Ant" is a personal name, whether or not it was given to him by his parents" - Ahhh but it wasn't given to him by his parents. It was created by Stuart Leslie Goddard himself. Why did he pick Adam Ant? It's a corruption of the cartoon title "The Atom Ant Show". In the biography Adam and the Ants by Fred and Judy Vermorel, it says after he got home from a gig with Bazooka Joe, his first band, he fell asleep on a couch and woke up a few hours later with that cartoon playing on his television set, and decided to change his name and go solo. Iam 00:01, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
I realise that, Iam — unfortunately I'm old enough to have been a fan of Adam and the Ants when they were big! My point was that even if he made the name up, it's still a name, and so (in my opinion) it happily belongs in the list. --Lancevortex 00:30, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch lyrics

Why are we listing Dutch songs here? I mean, this is the English Wikipedia, so shouldn't we have songs that, if not recorded by English-speaking people, at least have English lyrics? Adam Bishop 04:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The same could be said for other lists I guess. I'm seeing a lot of Japanese songs appearing on some of the lists I edit. The logical thing to do would be to start up a mirror list in the Japanese section but that doesn't appear to be the case. Iam 04:05, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia means it's an encyclopedia in the English language - not about English subjects. We have articles about German towns, Chinese foods and French performers as well. Or to phrase it differently, where are "us.wikipedia.org" and "au.wikipedia.org"? OTOH, feel free to start a List of songs whose title includes personal names and whose lyrics are in English page. Abigail 08:30, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
I can see why Adam feels this way, as the vast majority of English Wikipedia users will be from the major English-speaking countries, and will therefore be familiar with many of the songs with English lyrics, but not with those with lyrics in Dutch or any other language. You can see by the number of red links to the Dutch bands that this is the case. However, my opinion is neatly summed up by Abigail — and so I think it is perfectly legitimate for songs with non-English lyrics to be in the list. --Lancevortex 09:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to explain what I mean without simply saying "but that's different!" about the German towns, etc :) Oh well. Adam Bishop 14:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've added a few Japanese songs that fit the bill as well. I find it interesting how many Dutch songs there are on this list, compared to the number of Swedish or other non-English songs! Kyouketsusha

[edit] Anji

What to do with "Anji" from Simon & Garfunkel? It doesn't have lyrics, but it's probably a name. I tend towards not including, but I can go either way. Abigail 12:24, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting one. Does a tune have to be sung to count as a song? If not, then if it can be shown that "Anji" was meant as a person's name, and if we go by a literal interpretation of the title of this list, then I would say yes, it should be included. Short of asking Paul Simon, I don't know how we're going to find out if it is meant to be a person's name though! --Lancevortex 14:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Anji was actually written by Davy Graham, but I'm not sure if it's a name. Adam Bishop 14:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And some webresearch suggests that the original title is 'Angi'. It has always been instrumental. Abigail 15:04, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization & highlighting in Contain section

Whoa! It appears that anonymous user 68.63.160.204 performed some major surgery on the "Contains" half of this list in the past week, resorting it by each contained name (or some portion thereof) and highlight those names. This person didn't bother to discuss it first, announce it when executed, or change the suggested guidelines to be consistent with the page text. Very bad Wiki etiquette! On the other hand, I have to say that the results look good, make it easier to spot the names, and make sense. Still, this significant a change should be discussed, especially it raises many of the old questions and a few new ones:

  • Last names: Why "Sean Olsen", but "Bring Me the Head of David Geffen"?
  • Nicknames: Why "The Ballad of Country Dick" but "The Ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead"?
  • Why "The Bewlay Brothers", not "The Bewlay Brothers"?
  • How to handle multiple names, like "Bonnie & Clyde"?
  • Why "Dolly Dawn", not "Dolly Dawn" or "Dolly Dawn"?
  • Might highlighting the names be a good way to allow us to merge the "Exact" and "Contain" sections, since it'll be easier to spot the exact-name titles among the merged list?

I invite comments about this reformatting and resorting, opinions on the questions above, and any other comments about this new approach. -- Jeff Q 06:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see we now have sort-by-personal-name and make-name-bold guidelines, although the latter is not yet practiced in the Exact section, and neither has been applied yet to T-Z in the Contain section. (I started to work on "Contain T", but quickly ran into the problems I listed above, which is why I posted the issues.)
I had an idea while creating a new article, List of songs whose title includes dates and times, which has many of the same issues. I've started it using this new practice of bolding and sorting by the key words/names, adding a few rules that (if they work well as the list develops) could be used here to solve some of the above problems. People might want to check this new list out for the format (and hopefully contribute, too!). -- Jeff Q 22:54, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't stand seeing the Contains list partially unformatted, so I finished it. I took the unformatted entries in 0-9, T, and U-Z, bolded the names, and moved the songs into new locations where appropriate. Some observations:
  1. I arbitrarily bolded only the first-occurring name in titles with more than one name. I don't find this satisfactory, but we have no policy on this. (In List of songs whose title includes dates and times, I'm recommending that such titles be entered once for each name in the appropriate place and with each name bolded only in its section.)
  2. I didn't include nicknames unless I felt they were "inseparable" from the more common name. I'm not happy about this, either, but again, there's no policy yet.
  3. I was going to suggest that the Contains 0-9 section is no longer necessary, but then I thought of Toto's "99", which I'll add momentarily.
-- Jeff Q 14:33, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oops! "99" is actually an exact name, so I created a new Exact 0-9 section. Never thought we'd need that! -- Jeff Q 14:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Combining Exact and Contains sections

I don't really see a point to having separate Exact and Contains sections anymore (even though I started that practice), given that the Contains section is now grouped by the very same thing (the name itself) that the Contains sections is. Unless someone objects strongly, I plan to merge the sections into one list and bold all names that place a song where it is, so it will be obvious to readers what is being grouped. — Jeff Q 09:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As threatened ☺, I've combined the sections, so everything's sorted together, first by personal name, then by title (not ignoring articles, to make manual sorting easier). I've also updated the introductory paragraph and the Notes section to reflect the changes. One thing I didn't complete was sorting identical titles by exact band names; e.g., Dion -> Elvis Costello -> Steppenwolf -> The Beatles. It looks like the list was already mostly sorted this way anyhow, so it shouldn't take long. — Jeff Q 10:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless article

This has to be the most pointless article yet! What purpose does it serve as an encyclopedia article? It just seems like list building for the sake of it. Does anyone else agree? -- User:143.239.7.2

I should think it would be obvious that most of the people who frequent this page would disagree. ☺ However, you're not the first to make this observation about a song-list article. I think you'll find that, although there are some who dislike these lists, there is typically no consensus to remove them, and considerable vocal support to keep them. — Jeff Q 18:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Compact table of contents

Is everyone else as annoyed at the long, skinny table of contents as I am? If so, I have what I believe is a much more useful and compact TOC that would reduce it to one line, but still allow for page-sized divisions of each letter for long sections. It would have the following components:

  • One line for a single-letter index to jump to a section (much like the Wikipedia custom TOC templates).
         0-9 A B C D E F G H  I   J  K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
  • One line for miscellaneous links, like so:
         Notes See also References
  • For subdivided letters, there would be a one-line sub-TOC that shows the subdivisions at the top of that letter's section. For example, the A section would start with the following line with links to each subsection:
           A-Ak     Al-Am     An     Ao-Az  

It does require a bit more maintenance, but the sub-TOCs can be tweaked and replicated as the list expands. The main advantage is that it's a lot quicker to get to a specific place in the list, and I firmly believe that ease of using should come before ease of editing. Even so, this formatting doesn't change how you add songs to the list sections, so it won't get in the way of regular contributions.

Please take a look at a working version of this TOC (for the geographical-name song list) in my sandbox for a variation on this compact TOC. (The geo-name list has one line per song-lyric language; this list would only have a single line of letter links, unless we eventually decide to divide this list into language groups, too.) Let me know what you all think. — Jeff Q 04:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Separating songs by language

I'm contemplating separating the songs in this list by language; i.e., the English-language songs would be in an English group, and so with the Dutch, French, Japanese, and any other language that appears in the list. Each group would still have the songs subgrouped into personal names and then sorted within the name group by strict alphanumeric order, as is currently done. This would serve several purposes:

  1. It would make it easier for any group of readers speaking one language primarily to look up songs they're more likely to have heard of.
  2. It would significantly reduce the length of some of the sections (like the A subsections) for each language group, reducing the need for alphabetic subdivisions.
  3. It would be easier to add a title in the correct place because each language group will have substantially fewer songs, reducing the sorting effort.
  4. It would be easy to see the relative representation of the different languages. (Not a major point, but an interesting one brought up by Kyouketsusha last year.)

This strikes me as a reasonable balance between the focus on English-oriented topics in en:Wikipedia without excluding songs that rightly belong here, based on the article title. (See Dutch lyrics above for some earlier discussion on this issue.

On the other hand, people may feel that this would unreasonably favor English songs, especially if they were placed first on the page. Also, some may feel it would be better just to further subdivide the letter sections (like I've just done for A and B) to get them into page-size chunks.

You can see a working example of the language grouping over at List of songs whose title includes geographical names, which has had the same challenges of size and language that this list has. We made the switch over there, and so far it seems to be accepted. (It also encouraged me to look up some Irish-language songs to add!) Shortly after January 17, 2005, you should also be able to see the new compact table of contents I suggested above in operation.

[edit] Language grouping votes

I'd like to ask for a vote on whether to do the language grouping. Please register your vote sometime before February 14, 2005, by adding a line:

* ~~~~

under the appropriate choice below. This will post your user name and a timestamp on a bulleted line. Feel free to add brief comments, but if you have a lot to say, please post it under the Language grouping discussion section that follows.

[edit] FOR LANGUAGE GROUPING

  • Jeff Q 23:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Kyou 21:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) :)
  • Charlie 16:48, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
  • It works well on the geogrpahical names page, I can't see it not doing here. Thryduulf 23:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AGAINST LANGUAGE GROUPING

[edit] Language grouping discussion

Please use this space to make detailed and/or impassioned pleas for or against the change. — Jeff Q 23:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Less than three days before the above deadline, I see we have a consensus of the readers who've voted. If anyone wants to vote or comment, please do so soon. Unless things change, I plan to implement the language grouping (with the geo names-style TOC, which is easily reversible if people don't like it) sometime on or after February 15, 2004. — Jeff Q 10:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If anyone was wondering what happened to the changes I proposed, the problem was that I've been excruciatingly preoccupied with meatspace activities, and haven't been able to focus on anything that would take a few hours of Wikiwork. I hope to finally make the changes described above in the next week or two. Sorry 'bout the delay. — Jeff Q (talk) 23:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello, it seems that nothing has been done about this, so I've decided to do it. I'm slowly working my way through. Nekura 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting up the list

This list is getting longer and longer... therefore it is loosing it's clarity and readabillity.
A split by alphabet would also speed up the loading times.
The same thing is already done in the article: List of songs by name, And this list is way much longer than that one.
It really wouldn't be a huge job... just a copy-paste action.

If nobody disagrees, I will take up this task ASAP, let's say within 3 days?
Patrick1982 14:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Update: I now see why this page has gotten so huge: there are multiple instances of serveral letters!

So I placed a cleanup-rewrite tag, untill this has ben fixed. Patrick1982 15:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Consider it done :) Patrick1982 12:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • And well done. Just a question: why not made a template for the TOC to 26 A-Z-pages? Is there a sort of restriction? -DePiep 15:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linking

It seems that most songs are linked only if there is a song page. Many songs about people don't have pages but maybe the people would. I don't think we should mix linking the song if the song doesn't have a page. What do you think about:

Something like that. In other cases it might be even more important like:

I find that to be really ugly, linkiing part of the song title. What do people think about this? gren グレン 22:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc (?) 23:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting

I see some of the names are sorted like this: (too lazy to use formatting in example)

Johnny by Band A
Johnny by The Band B
Johnny by Band C
The Ballad of Johnny by Band D
Good Johnny by Band E
Weird Johnny by Band F

Is that right? From what the rules at the front say, I thought that all the names, even exact matches, starting with Johnny should be alphabetisised in their groups? The above example would then be:

Good Johnny by Band E
Johnny by Band A
Johnny by Band C
Johnny by The Band B
The Ballad of Johnny by Band D
Weird Johnny by Band F

Can someone clarify this? And if it's true, should we go through the entry fixing it or just leave it in the way that (seems) to be working well enough? Satan's Rubber Duck 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mrs & Mrs. under M

I notice that a lot of Mr. & Mrs. have been listed under M (eg Mrs. Robinson). Apart from being in a silly place alphabetically, I thought the lists were for personal names. If they are Mr or Mrs x then they would be family or surnames. According to precident whole names are OK if they also include the personal names (eg Steve McQueen), and most of these don't. Should I edit them out?Tony Corsini 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_songs_whose_title_includes_personal_names_c9b9.html"