Jump to content

Talk:Christmas Wrapping

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

Question

[edit]

Isn't it the case that the songwriter actually hated christmas? The story I heard involved a T-shirt bearing the slogan "Jump, George Bailey, Jump!" - 88.111.177.35 (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Wrappings

[edit]

I've have never heard this being used.

I've checked Google for "Christmas Wrappings." It brings back few entries about the song. "Christmas Wrappings Waitresses" brings back a few hundred entries.

I don't feel this is enough to justify the inclusion of this information.

It lends only confusion to the article.

I'd request it's removal unless a substantial citation can be brought forward.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.234.100 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 1 December 2008

Jeneral28

[edit]

It's has no relation to iCarly.Jeneral28 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you redirect this page like it is being done with Homeless Heart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeneral28 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 24 May 2009

Because this article passes WP:MUSIC. WP:MUSIC says: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable". Since the song has been performed by more than one major artist (The Donnas, Spice Girls, ect...) it has notability. Frehley 10:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may have been a confusion here. Jeneral28 seems to have been responding to some link between this page and the one for iCarly, in which case s/he may have been trying to say THAT link should be redirected. I've gone back into the history to break out the different contributions into different page sections so it's a little more clear who's responding to whom, and when. The second remark, unsigned, was made by Jeneral28, who had made the initial remark about iCarly. Lawikitejana (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on First Year of Release

[edit]

For the last 10 to 15 years or so, I've personally been under the impression that "Christmas Wrapping" by The Waitresses was first released in 1981 on the indie holiday album A Christmas Record. But based on the information of the track listing within the fairly new Wikipedia article for A Christmas Record, it seems as if the track was not included on the original 1981 release of the LP, but rather on the 1982 revised "special edition" of the LP, and that it was never released as a 45 RPM single until 1982. This is news to me, as I've always been under the impression that "Christmas Wrapping" was included on the original 1981 release of A Christmas Record. Can someone please confirm or deny this? There are at least two other Wikipedia articles that would need to be updated if this is the case besides this article, specifically the reference article List of Christmas hit singles and the article on the band itself. Thank you. --Sliv812 (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was first released on the original 1981 album. The error was caused by this edit - [1] - a few days ago, which I can only imagine was an inadvertent error by another editor. I've now corrected it Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, Guy! Thank you for fixing the error too. --Sliv812 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Patty Donahue in first sentence

[edit]

At the time of writing, this article begins: '"Christmas Wrapping" is a Christmas song written by Chris Butler and recorded in 1981 by The Waitresses, featuring vocals by Patty Donahue.'

I've deleted the 'featuring vocals by Patty Donahue' part, because she's part of the band, the Waitresses, who we've already mentioned. Specifying that she sang the vocals is redundant; you might as well say it features drums by Billa Ficca. It would make sense if Donaue (or Ficca) were notable guest performers on the recording, but they weren't. You wouldn't begin an article on a Rolling Stones song by saying it featured vocals by Mick Jagger, so why do it here?Popcornduff (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The article is about the record, which is widely known without many people knowing who it's by. The answer is that it's by "The Waitresses" - essentially, to most readers, quite an obscure band - and it was written by one of the band members. So far so good. But one of the first questions that most people would ask is not, "which band is this?", or "who wrote this?", or "who was the drummer on this?" - the first question is "who is the person singing this?", to which the answer is... Patty Donahue. She is not "just" the person who happened to be the singer in the Waitresses, she is someone who has her own article, which anyone asking the question "who sang 'Christmas Wrapping'?" may well be likely to want to read. The vocal performance is fundamental to this particular record, and the issue of "who sang this Rolling Stones song?" is not relevant because anyone accessing a Stones song article would know who the vocalist is (and I assume, without checking, that Keith Richards is mentioned on those songs he sings on - if not, he should be). So, the Patty Donahue article needs to be linked from this article. I don't really care very much if her article is linked from the first sentence or not - though it makes by far the most sense to me - but if it's a really serious major issue for you (and I've no idea why that might be), feel free to come up with a sensible rewrite that incorporates her name. Change "featuring" to "with", by all means. But don't just delete one of the most pertinent facts related to the record - the answer to the question "who sings this song?" Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. For the record, this isn't "a serious major issue" for me, but I find this an interesting debate purely because I'm a Wikipedia nerd.
Your reply has a few assumptions I question:
- You claim: "the issue of "who sang this Rolling Stones song?" is not relevant because anyone accessing a Stones song article would know who the vocalist is". To my mind this violates the principle of an encyclopedia. According to this article, we should write for the "general reader who has no advanced education in the topic's field, is largely unfamiliar with the topic itself, and may even be unsure what the topic is before reading". So your point of differentiation from the Rolling Stones doesn't convince me. If, as you reckon, we should specify Patty here, then we should specify every singer in every song article ever, too.
- "The vocal performance is fundamental to this record". A value judgement I question, because I don't see how it differs from millions of other songs. They're called songs, after all.
- "One of the first questions that most people would ask is not, "which band is this?", or "who wrote this?", or "who was the drummer on this?" - the first question is "who is the person singing this?"." Is this true? It seems more likely to me that people would ask "which artist recorded this song". Michael Jackson? U2? Madonna? Pink Floyd? The simple answer here is "the Waitresses". Someone looking for the name of the singer simply finds the information later in the article.
It's only worth mentioning when it's notable, eg the track has a guest singer on it, or the band has a cycling rota of regular lead vocalists and you want to specify which Beatle performed them. What is notable about the lead vocalist of this band performing lead vocals on this song? Isn't that completely in line with normal expectations? It doesn't need to go in the first sentence, or the lead, unless you have something else to say about the recording or performance. The problem is exacerbated by the current wording, 'featuring', which implies that Patty's vocals are a notable or unusual component of this recording, like a guest appearance. They weren't.
Phew - a lot words about an admittedly small issue. I won't continue editing for now, but interested in your response. Popcornduff (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the current wording? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: ... and, if you don't like it, where "later in the article" would you add her name - cos it ain't there now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally still don't like it, because it singles out Patty Donahue as somehow a separate entity from the band, worth mentioning separately. Again, that makes as much sense to me as saying "whose drummer was Billa Ficca". Like I said, 'featuring' only exacerbated the problem, it wasn't the cause itself.
As for where she could be mentioned/linked later in the article: well, how about we add something worth saying about her performance or recording? If there is nothing notable to say about Patty Donahue's performance or recording in the song, other than to mention simply that she did it, then she doesn't need to be mentioned at all, and readers can learn about her in the Waitresses article instead. Popcornduff (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I have exactly the same issue with specifying that it was written by Chris Butler in the first sentence. What's more, including it immediately in the article makes it sound like Butler in fact wasn't a member of the Waitresses, which is misleading. Popcornduff (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My basic point is that we should be aiming to give out information, rather than withhold it. If you want to rewrite the opening section - or later sections - in a way that makes explicit reference to both Butler's and Donahue's contributions, that's fine. But I believe we should credit real people wherever possible - especially major contributors like songwriters and singers - rather than solely make somewhat meaningless references to obscure band names. Specifically, this article should have links to Butler, Donahue, and The Waitresses, rather than just to the band's article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'My basic point is that we should be aiming to give out information, rather than withhold it.' No - we only give information when it's notable. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information.
Crediting the song's writing and performance to the Waitresses in the opening sentence is hardly a 'somewhat meaningless reference'. It is in fact a highly pertinent piece of information. How obscure the band in question is isn't relevant, though the fact that we're writing about them implies they're notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, and besides, the individuals Butler and Donahue are if anything more obscure, which doesn't help your position. Popcornduff (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we mention The Waitresses - I don't dispute that. Both Butler and Donahue are sufficiently notable that they have their own articles, and I believe we should mention them here. WP:IINFO relates to what articles should exist, not the content of articles. Rather than pursuing this discussion, why don't you come up with a form of words that we can discuss? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability applies to the content of articles too, not just the subject of the articles. This should be obvious - if I listed types of banana in the article you'd be right to delete it on grounds of non-notability.
You're right, I'll put my money where my mouth is and come up with a new article later on. Popcornduff (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Types of banana? I think you're misinterpreting guidance - article content is assessed primarily on the basis of balance, due weight, and reliable sources, not on whether every individual statement is in some way individually notable (and I have no idea how that could be determined anyway). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Popcornduff total edit count: 1207. Ghmyrtle total edit count: 46,425. Just sayin'. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd agree that listing bananas would be undue weight here, wouldn't you? Anyway, I've rewritten the page. It still needs more work, but I think it's a lot cleaner and clearer now. Popcornduff (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What has listing bananas to do with anything? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was an extreme example of how indiscriminately listing information in a Wikipedia article is obviously an absurd thing to do: the information has to be notable to the subject and pertinent. Mentioning Butler and Donahue in the first sentence isn't pertinent and lends them undue weight. Popcornduff (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: recent edit: I guess all that "why don't you edit it yourself" talk was for naught, then! Popcornduff (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested you should edit it yourself. I suggested you should "...come up with a form of words that we can discuss" - here, on this page. You didn't - you edited it yourself. Still, it could have been worse and you were right to get rid of a lot of the dross. By the way, I regard naming Butler in the opening sentence as even more essential than naming Donahue. There is a huge bias across a lot of WP's pop music articles against naming songwriters, which I try my best to redress. The article is about a song, not a particular recording, and it is absolutely fundamental that an article about a song should credit its creator as prominently as possible. Not naming the writer in the opening sentence is like not mentioning Leonardo in the opening sentence of the article on the Mona Lisa. I still have no idea what your reference to bananas is supposed to mean. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Forget the bananas. I regret the entire bananas episode bitterly. Sheesh.
Look at the article for Private Dancer. The song was recorded and performed by Tina Turner, but written by Mark Knopfler, who has nothing to do with Tina Turner. It's therefore appropriate, in the Wiki article, to mention the distinction in the opening sentence to avoid implying Turner wrote the song and provide pertinent information: crediting Leonardo where credit is due.
But in cases like ours, where the principal songwriter is a member of the band, it's redundant to mention it in the opening sentence. The reader will assume correctly that the band (individuals or as a group) wrote the song. The specifics of who did what can be mentioned later when discussing the details. Popcornduff (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
e: to clarify, the Waitresses are the Leonardo in your example, in a high-level opening-sentence sense.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christmas Wrapping. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christmas Wrapping. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christmas_Wrapping&oldid=1195542038"