Talk:Carry On Wayward Son/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Question

question: Is it carry on wayward son, or carry on my wayward son?

It's Carry On Wayward Son, no my. --VPeric (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding a viable source, the Kansas official website (http://www.kansasband.com/about.html#anchor4) the title is officially "Carry On Wayward Son" but the lyrics clearly say "carry on my wayward son" throughout the song. http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=2452 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.196.83 (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Christian rock song

My dad was into them at the time this song came out an it has Christian lyric content so is it christian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.82.216 (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Songs don't practice religion, people do. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the page be moved?

"On" shouldn't be capitalized in the title.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is correct as is..."carry on" is a two-part phrasal verb and in such cases, both words should be capitalized in a title. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

stub?

The page is kind of short i was wondering if any one thinks that it should count as a stub? Alinkinthefuture (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carry On Wayward Son. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Drawn Together Reference

This is completely fictitious as there is no episode in drawn together where anyone uses this song. even the episode mentioned does not exist as per List_of_Drawn_Together_episodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.211.91 (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with adding nonsense like trivia and worse is not having it referenced by reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Following the edit war surrounding the genre, would the VH1 reference to it being on the "100 Best Hard Rock songs" list be considered as an acceptable reference? The reason I ask is because this same reference is used to add the hard rock genre to the Smashing Pumpkins song "Bullet with Butterfly Wings", and if it is considered acceptable there would it be the same here? 81.96.94.137 (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. The AllMusic review that states "Using the rudiments of prog rock", make it clear it's of that genre. It would better to have prose than simply lumped into a category. The problem also is that VH1 tends to lean toward soft-rock, and R&B, so their idea of hard rock may be different than MTV's would. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking the same myself, as having looked through the list a number of the songs on there are ones I personally would have considered alternative rock, but it's as good a reference as any I can find, and as I pointed out it's already been used on another page. 81.96.94.137 (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hard rock is not supported. A VH1 list is not reliable. I removed the genre until a concrete source can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

First top 10 hit

@TenPoundHammer: I don't see where that source says it was their first top 10 hit. Toddst1 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

  • The source lists all the peaks in chronological order. It is not original research to look at a list of song peaks in chronological order and see which is the first Top 10 hit. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

How to describe the song itself

I noticed we have chart positions, writing credits and release details, but absolutely nothing about the actual content which sets any song apart from any other. I tried to fill that void, but I was reverted.

I understand Wikipedia not wanting original research, so I aimed to only include what is in the source itself, per MOS:FICTIONPLOT. A song is essentially just a story with music. Apparently, I overstepped, so welcome input on how to reword it in a way that objectively conveys basic info on what it's about and how it's structured. Track length alone isn't bad information, just feels a little incomplete. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

FICTIONPLOT is not applicable as a song is not just a story with music. Describing the song is not required per Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. If you want to see how to describe a song, take a look at the individual songs as discussed from Presence (album). You'll notice that almost everything is referenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN

@Walter Görlitz:, WP:NOTBROKEN has nothing to do with updating a link target of an "already piped link". - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: What? It clearly states "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken". That's exactly what it talks about.
That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] or [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] just to "fix a redirect". However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] if for some reason it is preferred that "Franklin D. Roosevelt" actually appear in the visible text.
You're bypassing a redirect. I don't think you're reading it correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Just because a redirect exist, it has to be used? I'm updating the "already piped" link target, I'm sorry but that's ridiculous, if a redirect exist, it has to be and you can not link directly to the target ? WP:NOTBROKE has nothing against updating link targets of piped links. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the case. Fixing redirects is not a reason to move away from a redirect. Read the guideline and if you think I'm wrong, ask on the guideline's talk page. I won't try to convince you here.
You had already reverted me before already piped link before I wrote anything here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's your interpretation, I'll leave this change alone, revert if you like and bypass the actual page, LOL - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
And that's the point, it's not my interpretation. That is how it is applied. I will revert if you don't engage on the talk page to determine that your interpretation is wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Calm down, did you read my last comment, I said I'm done here, revert the change and happy editing. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not about this article alone. One of us is under a misconception that needs to be corrected. We can't have editors going off and doing things on their own. If I'm wrong, you should call me out and tell me that the community consensus is against me to prevent me from edit warring about things like this. Alternately, if you're wrong, you should be aware of the way things are done to avoid edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Who's edit warring ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
No one and that's what I'm trying to prevent. Why are you focusing on one phrase and not the big picture? Please try to summarize that last post to see if you understand. If you don't, I'd be glad to restate it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Trivia

This article is 90% trivia about where the song has appeared in other media. I think that section should be removed. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I have done so. and am depositing the detritus here for posterity. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly do you feel that all of this perfectly valid information should have been removed? It is information. Last I checked, this is an encyclopedia. If you feel it should be placed somewhere for "posterity", would that place not be, by definition, the article itself? If people come here looking for a reference to where the song was used, why shouldn't they be able to find that information? Your action seems baseless and excessively heavy-handed. Many other articles contain long lists of popular culture references. In particular, and why I happened to check this article, the song is very popular with the viewers of the show Supernatural, which did have a reference included before you removed it. So, using your standard, if I don't see any "discussion" or "objections" in four days I'm restoring your so-called "detritus". Sdr (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Be sure and find WP:RS for each if you do. We have this policy you may have heard about called WP:V. Just because you think you heard it while you were watching TV, doesn't cut it. Toddst1 (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
IMDB explicitly falls under WP:USERGENERATED. I've removed the additions cited using that source. Toddst1 (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC on inclusion of appearance of Supernatural

The consensus is that the article should mention that the song has been played multiple times on Supernatural (U.S. TV series).

Cunard (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article mention that the song has been played multiple times on Supernatural (U.S. TV series)? JDDJS (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Include The song has become so associated with the show that the producers got Kansas to surprise fans with a performance of it at San Diego Comic Con. Multiple sources covered it when it happened, and most of them referred to it as the (unofficial) theme song for the show. The article is also really short, and could use more referenced information too. There is no reason not to include a sentence or two mentioning how it's consider the unofficial theme song of the show and that the band played it at comic con. Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6] and passing mentions in [7][8][9]. I think that's more than enough. JDDJS (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Only if sources are provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Include The sources JDDJS provided seem like more than enough. I don’t see why it shouldn’t be mentioned. Linguistical (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MOS:TRIVIA

The "In popular culture" section is trivia and brings no insight to a song that needs no fluffing. "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources." These might work at the articles for Supernatural and San Diego Comic-Con as they prop each other up, but they're unnecessary here. Side note-I've already been thanked for removal of this crap.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

So merge it into the article. It's clearly referenced and is significant as can be seen by the WP:SECONDARY sources: Knight, Nicholas, Supernatural Season 1 Companion p. 148, Titan Books Ltd., 2007, ISBN 978-1845765354 and Bucksbaum, Sydney (July 29, 2017). "How 'Supernatural' Pulled Off That Comic-Con Surprise With Kansas". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved July 30, 2017.. Do you not know what a secondary source actually is? Wikipedia:Content removal is frowned upon, not MOS:POPCULT sections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Why merge it? My goal is not to keep it-it's still crap, that's _your_ issue. Trivia is still trivia. Also, the header is meant to point you out-it's very much about you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, it meets the criteria of the guideline you reference, and the content has secondary sources. You have yet to prove it's crap and until you do, there's no further need to discuss this. The heading here is neutral as well as that's the section you haven't read. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh My God you'll start a new discussion! Whatever will I do? _You_ changed the title, Walter Görlitz and _you_ have serious WP:OWN issues, Walter Görlitz!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
As someone who has edited this article over a period of years, I thought I'd chime in here. Walter has done a remarkable job in reverting lots of WP:ISAWIT garbage out of this article over the years. However, this Supernatural reference is the exception. To be honest, I don't think including that info adds anything to the article. Unless someone is a fan of the program, I think it is in the category of trivia, no matter how well referenced it is. At the end of the day, the use of that song in that program is truly trivial in the context of the song and isn't even significant enough to be worked in to the article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Toddst1, that's been my point all along! At the end of the day, the use of that song in that program is truly trivial in the context of the song and isn't even significant enough to be worked in to the article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Notability is established by secondary sources not whether you think the "program is truly trivial in the context of the song". If they have independent secondary sources that discuss the usage of the song in the program (not just note its use), then they can add it to the article as per Wiki guidelines.03:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.38.176 (talk)
Just because something is WP:V, doesn't mean it should be included in any article. And an informed discussion that reaches consensus can override any guideline. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you alluding to WP:IINFO? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, more or less. The IP seemed to be arguing that if it could be sourced, it should be included instead of it may be included. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carry_On_Wayward_Son/Archive_1&oldid=1066669727"