Talk:Old Cape Cod

My last edit / irony / why quote boxes?

There's been a lot of editing on this page recently & I wanted to emphasize some amendments I've made hoping prospective editors will at least consider my point of view.

I'm the editor who introduced the detailed info on the writing of "Old Cape Cod" & Page's recording of it, including how Page had previously recorded a Yakus composition & how it was Rothrock who brought the song to Page's notice. As one would think that it was having a common composer with a previous Page hit that brought "Old Cape Cod" into Page's orbit but in reported fact it was another of the song's composers responsible for Page's recording the song I maintain that the use of the adverb "however" in my original edit is appropriate & I've re-inserted it.

The section on Page's recording has been sub-sectioned: I think that's valid but "On the map" doesn't clearly designate the sub-section & I've replaced it with the "Legacy" designation common to Wikipedia articles. Also if a sub-section title is inserted mid-way through a section then a sub-section title should also be created for the section's earlier part: otherwise a section of the article might be overlooked due to not being noted in the Table of Contents. And so I've put the first part of the section under the sub-section title "Recording and impact".

Musings about the irony of singer & song putting each other on the map do not belong in an encyclopedic article. Apart from which Page had been on the public radar for a long time when she recorded "Old Cape Cod": in fact she was past the peak of her popularity & only occasionally having smash hits by 1957.

I've moved the info on Page's lawsuit with the American Savings Bank back into the section on Page's recording from "Other versions". Yes technically the American Savings Bank soundalike version was "another version" but its of significance only as a replication of Page's original & her reaction to it.

I wouldn't presume to delete the quote boxes showcasing a smattering of the song's lyrics but I do question their purpose especially as there's a link to the song's full lyrics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrylimerickey (talk • contribs) 19:42, March 6, 2013‎

Hi there, thanks very much for the feedback, it is much appreciated. Overall, I do hope you feel that the changes since this version of two months ago represent a net improvement to the article. As I'm the editor who made the bulk of the objectionable changes, I'll respond to each of your points in turn:

1. Re: "however" – Makes sense, no objection from me. By the way, might you have any references that can be added to this section to buttress that version of events?
2. Re: Legacy – Makes sense, no objection from me.
3. Re: "irony" – I have two thoughts on this point:
   • By your objection that "musings about the irony ... do not belong in an encyclopedic article", is it because you feel that it breaks the "formal tone" of an encyclopedia? "Formal tone" does not mean that an article need be dull, boring and lifeless. WP:TONE says that, "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." An encyclopedic article, if written correctly, should be interesting, and should engage the reader, so that they want to learn about the subject.
   • Closer to your point, there is no reason that an encyclopedic article cannot point out an irony, especially if it serves to further a reader's understanding of the subject. It appears, however, that I did a poor job of it, since you missed the point of irony that I was attempting to highlight. That serves to reinforce my suspicion that most readers, including myself initially, will fail to notice it on their own. I was not commenting on an irony of "singer & song", but rather of "singer and song's subject". I was not making a figurative claim that the song (or its subject) had somehow "made her famous", for we all know that isn't true. Nay, I intended to point out the perhaps-not-so-obvious situational irony: that by naming a street after her, Cape Cod had literally "put her on the map" in response to her figuratively "putting Cape Cod on the map". I still feel that that is worth pointing out, and that there must be a way to say it while maintaining both WP:NPOV and WP:TONE.
4. Re: lawsuit – I'm a bit ambivalent about this one, but I'd like to point out that the word "Legacy" implies a heritage or a lasting effect (making it an excellent title for that section). It seems to me, however, that "replication" or not, the advert was nevertheless "another version" of the song. IMHO, the topic is more fitting under "Other versions" than under "Legacy".
5. Re: quote boxes – No magic there, I simply felt that they added to the reader's understanding of the topic. Further, they were added to the article a full month before a bot added the external link to the lyrics site (which a user is less likely to follow). If there is a consensus that they detract from the article or are otherwise inappropriate, then I'd agree with removing one or two of them (but not the first one).

Thanks again, Grollτech (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)