 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Melody
editAny sources as to the melody's origins? The Gnome (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"Parody"
editA user is trying to insert a "parody" section, which contains "alternative" lyrics with (explicit) content, obviously sung by opponents in "response" to the Carefree song. This is a practice which, if extended to similar entries, would clutter wikipedia with "responses" and "retorts", posted by competing groups of soccer fans. Opinions are invited. -The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Clearly any discussion of a topic related to football teams quickly leads to passionate argument that is unrelated to the matter that started it. The usual norms of verifiability surely apply. If there is a reliable source for the alternate lyrics then they should probably be included. I don't believe content is "screened" based on it having explicit content, i.e. this is OK in Wikipedia as long as it is not gratuitous (can't find a reference for that). Rich257 (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Explicitness" is irrelevant. (Wikipedia is ...explicit about that!) The point is that there is simply no end to "alternate" lyrics of well-known, popular songs. Therefore, aside from verifiability, the criterion of notability should be applied. Otherwise, every entry risks of being inundated with pseudo-parodies. The parody of Al Yankovic, for example, merits a separate and thorough inclusion in Wikipedia, because it is often equally or more famous than the original. But this is clearly not the case with parodies of ..football songs. -The Gnome (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the parody has a reliable source and can be verified, it can be added, however, I feel that adding the lyrics is redundant, because the article is about the Carefree (chant) and not the opposition chant. 1-2 sentences explaining the opposing chant can be added, but a whole section devoted to the opposition chant is not necessary. Also, yes Wikipedia can have explicit content per WP:PROF, though as stated above, the lyrics shouldn't be added as it is just a chant made up by aggravated fans in response to this chant, which to me seems a bit trivial to add to the article.--SRX--LatinoHeat 13:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Explicitness" is irrelevant. (Wikipedia is ...explicit about that!) The point is that there is simply no end to "alternate" lyrics of well-known, popular songs. Therefore, aside from verifiability, the criterion of notability should be applied. Otherwise, every entry risks of being inundated with pseudo-parodies. The parody of Al Yankovic, for example, merits a separate and thorough inclusion in Wikipedia, because it is often equally or more famous than the original. But this is clearly not the case with parodies of ..football songs. -The Gnome (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Notability
editThis chant is not shown to be notable as there is only vaguely one reliable source. It either needs merging with the FC article or deleting. GDallimore (Talk) 16:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree This seems to be the most notable song of Chelsea football club, similarly to Liverpool's "You'll Never Walk Alone" or West Ham's "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles". Wikipedia contains articles on most notable football chants, as evidenced by the links on this page.-The Gnome (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's a laughable justification. The chants you refer to are original, independently notable songs, which just happen to be used as chants. Lord of the Dance, for example, is notable but that doesn't make this version of it notable. It's also interesting to note that these chants by themselves do not have separate articles, but are merged with the main song articles.
- One can easily see, if one takes the time to access and examine the linked entries, that the football chants listed in that page are far from being all "original" or "independently notable". I take exception of the inflammatory use of words in your message, which has no place in such discussions. (Or, perhaps, you're on some kind of vendetta course, here. After our exchange on the Just Journalism Talk page (in which you implied Anti-Semitism on my part), you seem to have taken it upon yourself to "investigate" all my past edits and/or articles. I will not follow you down this road.)-The Gnome (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, you have added a second source and whatever the correctness of fallacy of your arguments, that is the only point at issue: notability confirmed by multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the topic. I must assume in good faith that the source provides detailed coverage about the chant, although my Internet searching suggests it does nothing more than document its existence. Perhaps you could quote the relevant portion here on the talk page so that an assessment of whether it provides sufficiently detailed coverage to contribute to notability can be made. GDallimore (Talk) 01:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's a laughable justification. The chants you refer to are original, independently notable songs, which just happen to be used as chants. Lord of the Dance, for example, is notable but that doesn't make this version of it notable. It's also interesting to note that these chants by themselves do not have separate articles, but are merged with the main song articles.