Talk:These Boots Are Made for Walkin'

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the These Boots Are Made for Walkin' article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.


Hi there, Lee Hazlewood himself recorded "These Boots Are Made For Walkin'", unfortunately I don't know the year when it happened (some sources say 1966, but I'm not sure), but well, it should be added here. -andy 217.94.164.46 2 July 2005 23:43 (UTC) are complete lyrics legal here? No, not if they're copyright (as they are here). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merge proposal

It has often been pointed out that individual recordings of songs should be merged with the main article. In this case, the article might seem too long, but most of it is an over-inflated description of a music video. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Major ditto to the merge. I don't think any of the video description is necessary - I could see the point if the video was groundbreaking, controversial, etc.; but it is just Jessica's (ample) assets shaking for the camera. I'm not complaining, but it is far from encyclopedic. If you're really energetic, Mel, you might look into Take My Breath Away (Jessica Simpson single) as it is also a non-notable cover. If you are really feeling productive, Angels (Jessica Simpson single) is not only a cover single, but doesn't match any notability standards (peaked at "#106" on Hot 100, and outside top 20 on pop radio). Volatile 02:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Your wish is my command. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Volatile, Nancy's assets were pretty respectable, too. See "Boobs" - er, I mean "Boots" - album cover. :-)
PS to Mel, yes, merge. - Rlw (Talk) 00:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes please merge, also shouldn't Jessica's "Sweetest Sin" a cover of Diane Warren's single. Couldn't that be merged too?

I think the only thing that should be mentioned about the video is the name of the director, and it shouldn't be in its own paragraph. Now we have two paragraphs of text and charts information. This is too little, they have to be merged somewhere. The text and the infobox could go to this article, the chart description to And The Band Played On (album). -Hapsiainen 07:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Being bold, I went ahead and merged the articles, seeing how there's a consensus here. Volatile 18:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this. The video was very controversial even to the point of having a Christian group yell at Jessica to remake the video. It also was a major hit too and is very well known for its music video and ties to The Dukes of Hazard. OmegaWikipedia 01:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree with OmegaWikipedia. The video was indeed controversial, as it was the final strike that separated Simpson from her previous bubble gum image (look at what both Britney and Christina did). The song was a modest hit, and due to it being the original song for a film, it deserves its own article, split from the original Nancy Sinatra version. --Winnermario 01:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with OmegaWikipedia and Winnermario. The song was a hit across the world and is well-known for the controversy caused by its music video. Merging it would only bloat the article; therefore, they should be seperated. --Anittas 04:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

OmegaWikipedia has expanded the article. Now the song is analyzed in several paragraphs, which don't feel bloated. Good work, I can't any more be a mergist. But I still think that the video is described too detailedly. I wouldn't write so much about any music video despite its fame or influence. The videos are less than five minutes long. You can't see the wood for the trees, when you explain all that happens in a video. -Hapsiainen 13:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The J.S. article is very much bloated and very much unnecessary. However, since its proponents are very dedicated, I don't see a point of arguing logic to a chimp. As you wish, O/W/A. Ditto to what Hapsiainsen said about the video, but there is little one can do there that won't be reverted by the afformentioned O/W/A either. Volatile 00:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the pages should be merged because the original by Nancy Sinatra has been known for decades and the only reason the Jessica Simpson version is popular now is due to the movie. In a year will the Jessica Simpson version be noted? Or just a blurb on a page. I think the two versions should stand on their own accord and their pages should reflect that. 71.197.153.88 22:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)soyoung

Keep separate. Merging them would create a big messy article.--Fallout boy 23:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep separate. Merging them would create a big messy article.--Bob 02:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. As to many people would complain. ILovEPlankton 13:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge. There's no reason the two should be moved, and there's enough information about the Jessica Simpson version to allow for it's own article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No Merge. There are two different artists and two different singles so let them keep their own pages even though it's the same song. --Stzr3 18:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Definitely needs merger. One song, one article. - Nunh-huh 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely merge the two articles. If we were to write an article about every controversial music video or song that a Christian group considered offensive, we'd never get anywhere. Why should this particular video/song be any different from any other? Spacini 11:31, 30 July 2006
  • Merge There's no reason not to do so. It may have information, but it still fits fine into the other article. Why should this be kept separate? It makes more sense to talk about it in the context of the song, not the context of the Jessica Simpson single. GassyGuy 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Articles should be merged as they are about the SONG. Same goes for any other cover version. -- eo 00:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

DON'T MERGE It is neeeded for Jessica's chronology and her verison has had a lot of controversy, so why does it belong with the original? It is different. It should have it's own article. So there is no consensus.

These article should not have been separated. It is a Wikipedia guideline that articles are about SONGS and not SINGLES. There is no reason why Jessica Simpson gets special treatment. This "it's needed for her chronology" makes NO sense - it can still be part of her chronology and merged with the original, just like every other artist who has a cover version. - eo 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychological weapon?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't this song used to flush out some terrorists some time in the 1980s? I think it might have been somewhere in Latin America, I'm not sure. If I'm right then I think there should be some note of this (though i certainly wouldn't know how to find a record of it, myself). If I'm wrong then I apologize for the mistake. Mk623SC20K 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also used by the BATF during the standoff in Waco, Texas. I remember reading that it was blared from speaker trucks circling the compound. 69.178.66.187 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another cover

Another cover is Le Braghe Corte's (an Italian group,) the video of which is featuring Italian and international porn star Rocco Siffredi. --Blazar.writeto() 10:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove info on Jessica Simpson's version

In an effort to make the world a better place, I suggest that all references to Jessica Simpson are deleted. Because it would be a better world without Jessica Simpson's voice. How about we simply pretend she doesn't exist? --201.9.92.254 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)