Talk:Mondegreen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Paring the list[edit]

Additions made without citations are rightfully subject to deletion. But rather than subjective judgments of what's a minor example, why noyt consider separating out a list and keeping only, say, three top examples per genre. No one is forced to read such a list who does not wish to do so.μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean -- I think I did keep the top examples -- such judgments necessarily being somewhat subjective -- by keeping those that had the best sources (again subjective, but preferring mainstream print to blogs), and yes, arbitrarily limiting the number: the purpose of the list is illustration, not archive/catalogue. Let's reject the approach of "nobody has to read it" -- that's what produces endless trivia lists like the mention of every great dane in every cartoon, movie and Lady Gaga video at Great Dane. Moving away from mere trivia, the Urban Legend article's consensus was finally against a list of all UL's (even those with articles at Wikipedia) -- you might consider creating a list page, as was suggested there. Additionally, this article has long carried a notice warning about injudicious additions. How about you identify those you think are crucial? Do users really need the Rugrats and Simpsons items in order to grasp the concept, its subtleties and variations? Get some third-party consensus on the worthiness of a given item, and we'll keep the article focussed DavidOaks (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That something be truly crucial is not a WP policy - just your subjective judgment, no more weighty than than the opinion of the original contributing editor. Aa I said, feel free to delete all unreferenced examples. Then we can look at your reasons for deleting referenced ones.μηδείς (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Medeis, you're doing mass reverts -- in fact, did it twice -- encompassing other edits as well; this is really bad form, and it's getting close to edit warring. Please be selective, and moreover be mindful of WP:3RR. You've got wikipolicy precisely backwards -- note that the burden of proof is upon those wishing to include challenged material -- you have been asked twice to take this to the talk page and make a case for those items you feel advance understanding of the subject. It is not my job to supply refs or to explain the necessity of Rugrats references to clarify a literary form. Finally, observe that in fact the consensus thus far is for keeping the list trim -- have a look at the hidden comments. DO NOT restore these items without making a case for their importance, and ideally securing some additional support. It's how the process works, ok? DavidOaks (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you have not distinguished in your edit between referenced and non-referenced examples. As it stands your first edit summary was misleading, and I don't have the time today to do your work for you. Please simply remove only the unreferenced examples you want removed, and I will not revert you. Until then, I remind you of 3RR as well.μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed some items from the lists, mostly unreferenced but a few that struck me as trivial, to try getting it down to manageable size. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to the cover of "Twisted" by Joni Mitchell. I could find no source that confirmed it was a misheard 'mondegreen' rather than a flubbed line by Mitchell. Also the original referenced webpage has been removed. It just doesn't seem to be notable. Tumacama (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I think an earlier idea to have a separate page "List of Mondegreens" is a good one, as it would allow the main page to be pared down. Arrivisto (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

First citation link does not seem to exist any more[edit]

Following the link in the first citation, " "Mondegreens" - Commonly Misheard Song Lyrics" just takes you to the Yahoo! front page, so it seems pretty clear the original page does not exist any more. Perhaps someone can either find an archived copy? Magidin (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

More film mondegreens[edit]

I will leave it to more experienced Wikipedians than me to add these additional film mondegreens, if they qualify. (1) In "Mermaids", Winona Ryder's character Charlotte, a Jewish girl who wants to become a Catholic nun: "dominos and biscuits" instead of the latin "dominus vobiscum" ("the Lord be with you"). (2) In an Olympia Dukakis film (perhaps "Moonstruck" or "Cemetery Club"?), at an after-funeral reception, a few children are playing under a dining room table, and one says: "and lead us not into Penn Station" instead of "and lead us not into temptation" from the Lord's prayer. Peterpqa (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Mondegreens[edit]

As I suggest above, I have created a new page, List of Mondegreens. I think it is appropriate to use the new page to list good examples, while pruning the main article. Arrivisto (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"Sometimes, the modified version of a lyric becomes standard, as is the case with "The Twelve Days of Christmas"[edit]

I don't think the song can be said to have a "standard" version. In any case, the original words are still often used. Kostaki mou (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mondegreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)