Talk:Carry On Wayward Son

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Songs (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Kansas (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

MOS:TRIVIA[edit]

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)

RFC on inclusion of appearance of Supernatural[edit]

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.